dataset
stringclasses 1
value | id
stringlengths 1
5
| messages
listlengths 2
2
|
|---|---|---|
query-laysum
|
6365
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAccurate diagnosis of tuberculosis in people living with HIV is difficult. HIV-positive individuals have higher rates of extrapulmonary tuberculosis and the diagnosis of tuberculosis is often limited to imaging results. Ultrasound is such an imaging test that is widely used as a diagnostic tool (including point-of-care) in people suspected of having abdominal tuberculosis or disseminated tuberculosis with abdominal involvement.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal ultrasound for detecting abdominal tuberculosis or disseminated tuberculosis with abdominal involvement in HIV-positive individuals.\nTo investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in test accuracy, including clinical setting, ultrasound training level, and type of reference standard.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for publications in any language up to 4 April 2019 in the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science (CPCI-S), and also ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included cross-sectional, cohort, and diagnostic case-control studies (prospective and retrospective) that compared the result of the index test (abdominal ultrasound) with one of the reference standards. We only included studies that allowed for extraction of numbers of true positives (TPs), true negatives (TNs), false positives (FPs), and false negatives (FNs). Participants were HIV-positive individuals aged 15 years and older. A higher-quality reference standard was the bacteriological confirmation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from any clinical specimen, and a lower-quality reference standard was a clinical diagnosis of tuberculosis without microbiological confirmation. We excluded genitourinary tuberculosis.\nData collection and analysis\nFor each study, two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form. We assessed the quality of studies using a tailored Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. We used the bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity. When studies were few we simplified the bivariate model to separate univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity and specificity. We explored the influence of the type of reference standard on the accuracy estimates by conducting separate analyses for each type of reference standard. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 11 studies. The risks of bias and concern about applicability were often high or unclear in all domains. We included six studies in the main analyses of any abnormal finding on abdominal ultrasound; five studies reported only individual lesions.\nThe six studies of any abnormal finding were cross-sectional or cohort studies. Five of these (83%) were conducted in low- or middle-income countries, and one in a high-income country. The proportion of participants on antiretroviral therapy was none (1 study), fewer then 50% (4 studies), more than 50% (1 study), and not reported (5 studies). The first main analysis, studies using a higher-quality reference standard (bacteriological confirmation), had a pooled sensitivity of 63% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43% to 79%; 5 studies, 368 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and a pooled specificity of 68% (95% CI 42% to 87%; 5 studies, 511 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the results were to be applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 people with HIV where 200 (20%) have tuberculosis then:\n- About 382 individuals would have an ultrasound result indicating tuberculosis; of these, 256 (67%) would be incorrectly classified as having tuberculosis (false positives).\n- Of the 618 individuals with a result indicating that tuberculosis is not present, 74 (12%) would be incorrectly classified as not having tuberculosis (false negatives).\nIn the second main analysis involving studies using a lower-quality reference standard (clinical diagnosis), the pooled sensitivity was 68% (95% CI 45% to 85%; 4 studies, 195 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and the pooled specificity was 73% (95% CI 41% to 91%; 4 studies, 202 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn HIV-positive individuals thought to have abdominal tuberculosis or disseminated tuberculosis with abdominal involvement, abdominal ultrasound appears to have 63% sensitivity and 68% specificity when tuberculosis was bacteriologically confirmed. These estimates are based on data that is limited, varied, and low-certainty.\nThe low sensitivity of abdominal ultrasound means clinicians should not use a negative test result to rule out the disease, but rather consider the result in combination with other diagnostic strategies (including clinical signs, chest x-ray, lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan assay (LF-LAM), and Xpert MTB/RIF). Research incorporating the test into tuberculosis diagnostic algorithms will help in delineating more precisely its value in diagnosing abdominal tuberculosis or disseminated tuberculosis with abdominal involvement.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the implications of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "If the test is used to rule in the disease in the absence of other evidence, then, the chance of diagnosing someone with tuberculosis when they actually do not have it is high. Chances of missing a diagnosis of tuberculosis when the test is positive are lower, but a negative test alone is probably insufficient to rule out the disease. These findings should be considered when deciding whether or not to use abdominal ultrasound to test for tuberculosis involving the abdomen and how to interpret the results in the context of other clinical and diagnostic test information."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6366
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUrinary schistosomiasis is caused by an intravascular infection with parasitic Schistosoma haematobium worms. The adult worms typically migrate to the venous plexus of the human bladder and excrete eggs which the infected person passes in their urine. Chronic infection can cause substantial morbidity and long-term complications as the eggs become trapped in human tissues causing inflammation and fibrosis. We summarised evidence of drugs active against the infection. This is new edition of a review first published in 1997.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of drugs for treating urinary schistosomiasis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and LILACS and reference lists of articles up to 23 May 2014.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antischistosomal drugs and drug combinations compared to placebo, no intervention, or each other.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo researchers independently screened the records, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. The primary efficacy outcomes were parasitological failure (defined as the continued presence of S. haematobium eggs in the urine at time points greater than one month after treatment), and percent reduction of egg counts from baseline. We presented dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR), and continuous data as mean difference (MD), alongside their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate we combined trials in meta analyses or tables. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 30 RCTs enrolling 8165 participants in this review. Twenty-four trials were conducted in children in sub-Saharan Africa, and 21 trials were over 20 years old. Many studies were assessed as being at unclear risk of bias due to inadequate descriptions of study methods.\nPraziquantel\nOn average, a single 40 mg/kg dose of praziquantel reduced the proportion of people still excreting eggs in their urine by around 60% compared to placebo at one to two months after treatment (treatment failure: RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.59, 864 participants, seven trials, high quality evidence). The proportion of people cured with praziquantel varied substantially between trials, from 22.5% to 83.3%, but was higher than 60% in five of the seven trials. At one to two months following praziquantel treatment at 40 mg/kg, the mean number of schistosome eggs in the urine was reduced by over 95% in five out of six trials (678 participants, six trials, high quality evidence).\nSplitting praziquantel 40 mg/kg into two doses over 12 hours probably has no benefits over a single dose, and in a single trial of 220 participants the split dose caused more vomiting (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86) and dizziness (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.94).\nMetrifonate\nA single dose of metrifonate 10 mg/kg reduced egg excretion (210 participants, one trial, at eight months), but was only marginally better than placebo at achieving cure at one month (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94, 142 participants, one trial). In a single trial comparing one, two and three doses, the absolute number of participants cured improved from 47% after one dose to 81% after three doses (93 participants, one trial, low quality evidence).\nTwo small trials compared 40 mg/kg single dose praziquantel with two or three doses of 10 mg/kg metrifonate and found no clear evidence of differences in cure (metrifonate 2 x 10 mg/kg at one month: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.34, 72 participants, one trial; metrifonate 3 x 10 mg/kg at three months: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.57, 100 participants, one trial. In one trial both drugs performed badly and in one trial both performed well.\nOther drugs\nThree trials have evaluated the antimalarial artesunate; with inconsistent results. Substantial antischistosomal effects were only seen in one of the three trials, which was at unclear risk of bias due to poor reporting of the trial methods. Similarly, another anti-malarial mefloquine has been evaluated in two small trials with inconsistent effects.\nAdverse events were described as mild for all evaluated drugs, but adverse event monitoring and reporting was generally of low quality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPraziquantel 40 mg/kg is the most studied drug for treating urinary schistosomiasis, and has the strongest evidence base.\nPotential strategies to improve future treatments for schistosomiasis include the combination of praziquantel with metrifonate, or with antimalarial drugs with antischistosomal properties such as artesunate and mefloquine. Evaluation of these combinations requires rigorous, adequately powered trials using standardized outcome measures.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does the research say?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "On average, the standard dose of praziquantel cures around 60% of people at one to two months after treatment (high quality evidence), and reduces the number of schistosome eggs in the urine by over 95% (high quality evidence).\nMetrifonate, an older drug no longer in use, had little effect when given as a single dose but an improved effect when given as multiple doses two weeks apart. Two trials compared three doses of metrifonate with the single dose of praziquantel and found similar effects.\nTwo more recent trials evaluated a combination of artesunate and praziquantel compared to praziquantel alone. In one trial artesunate improved cure and in one it made no difference."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6367
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHospital charges for lumbar spinal stenosis have increased significantly worldwide in recent times, with great variation in the costs and rates of different surgical procedures. There have also been significant increases in the rate of complex fusion and the use of spinal spacer implants compared to that of traditional decompression surgery, even though the former is known to incur costs up to three times higher. Moreover, the superiority of these new surgical procedures over traditional decompression surgery is still unclear.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy of surgery in the management of patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis and the comparative effectiveness between commonly performed surgical techniques to treat this condition on patient-related outcomes. We also aimed to investigate the safety of these surgical interventions by including perioperative surgical data and reoperation rates.\nSearch methods\nReview authors performed electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS and three trials registries from their inception to 16 June 2016. Authors also conducted citation tracking on the reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nThis review included only randomised controlled trials that investigated the efficacy and safety of surgery compared with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery, or with another surgical technique in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently assessed the studies for inclusion and performed the 'Risk of bias' assessment, using the Cochrane Back and Neck Review Group criteria. Reviewers also extracted demographics, surgery details, and types of outcomes to describe the characteristics of included studies. Primary outcomes were pain intensity, physical function or disability status, quality of life, and recovery. The secondary outcomes included measurements related to surgery, such as perioperative blood loss, operation time, length of hospital stay, reoperation rates, and costs. We grouped trials according to the types of surgical interventions being compared and categorised follow-up times as short-term when less than 12 months and long-term when 12 months or more. Pain and disability scores were converted to a common 0 to 100 scale. We calculated mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risks for dichotomous outcomes. We pooled data using the random-effects model in Review Manager 5.3, and used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 24 randomised controlled trials (reported in 39 published research articles or abstracts) in this review. The trials included 2352 participants with lumbar spinal stenosis with symptoms of neurogenic claudication. None of the included trials compared surgery with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery. Therefore, all included studies compared two or more surgical techniques. We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias for the blinding of care provider domain, and most of the trials failed to adequately conceal the randomisation process, blind the participants or use intention-to-treat analysis. Five trials compared the effects of fusion in addition to decompression surgery. Our results showed no significant differences in pain relief at long-term (mean difference (MD) -0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.32 to 6.74). Similarly, we found no between-group differences in disability reduction in the long-term (MD 3.26, 95% CI -6.12 to 12.63). Participants who received decompression alone had significantly less perioperative blood loss (MD -0.52 L, 95% CI -0.70 L to -0.34 L) and required shorter operations (MD -107.94 minutes, 95% CI -161.65 minutes to -54.23 minutes) compared with those treated with decompression plus fusion, though we found no difference in the number of reoperations (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.92). Another three trials investigated the effects of interspinous process spacer devices compared with conventional bony decompression. These spacer devices resulted in similar reductions in pain (MD -0.55, 95% CI -8.08 to 6.99) and disability (MD 1.25, 95% CI -4.48 to 6.98). The spacer devices required longer operation time (MD 39.11 minutes, 95% CI 19.43 minutes to 58.78 minutes) and were associated with higher risk of reoperation (RR 3.95, 95% CI 2.12 to 7.37), but we found no difference in perioperative blood loss (MD 144.00 mL, 95% CI -209.74 mL to 497.74 mL). Two trials compared interspinous spacer devices with decompression plus fusion. Although we found no difference in pain relief (MD 5.35, 95% CI -1.18 to 11.88), the spacer devices revealed a small but significant effect in disability reduction (MD 5.72, 95% CI 1.28 to 10.15). They were also superior to decompression plus fusion in terms of operation time (MD 78.91 minutes, 95% CI 30.16 minutes to 127.65 minutes) and perioperative blood loss (MD 238.90 mL, 95% CI 182.66 mL to 295.14 mL), however, there was no difference in rate of reoperation (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.51). Overall there were no differences for the primary or secondary outcomes when different types of surgical decompression techniques were compared among each other. The quality of evidence varied from 'very low quality' to 'high quality'.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this Cochrane review show a paucity of evidence on the efficacy of surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis, as to date no trials have compared surgery with no treatment, placebo or sham surgery. Placebo-controlled trials in surgery are feasible and needed in the field of lumbar spinal stenosis. Our results demonstrate that at present, decompression plus fusion and interspinous process spacers have not been shown to be superior to conventional decompression alone. More methodologically rigorous studies are needed in this field to confirm our results.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "How well do different types of surgery work for lumbar spinal stenosis?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6368
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPregnant women with sickle cell disease (HbSS, HbSC and HbSβThal) may require blood transfusion to prevent severe anaemia or to manage potential medical complications. Preventive blood transfusion in the absence of complications starting from the early weeks of pregnancy or blood transfusion only for medical or obstetric indications have been used as management policies. There is currently no consensus on the blood transfusion policy that guarantees optimal clinical benefits with minimal risks for such women and their babies. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of a policy of prophylactic versus selective blood transfusion in pregnant women with sickle cell disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We did not apply any language or date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of prophylactic versus selective (emergency) blood transfusion in pregnant women with sickle cell disease (SCD). Quasi-randomised trials and trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two review authors independently assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nOut of six relevant reports identified by the search strategy, one trial involving 72 women with sickle cell anaemia (HbSS) met our inclusion criteria. The trial was at unclear risk of bias. Overall, there were few events for most of the reported outcomes and the results were generally imprecise. The included trial reported no maternal mortality occurring in women who received either prophylactic or selective blood transfusion. Very low-quality evidence indicated no clear differences in maternal mortality, perinatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 13.22; very low-quality evidence) or markers of severe maternal morbidity (pulmonary embolism (no events); congestive cardiac failure (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.38; very low-quality evidence); acute chest syndrome (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.75)) between the treatment groups (prophylactic blood transfusion versus selective blood transfusion). Low-quality evidence indicated that prophylactic blood transfusion reduced the risk of pain crisis compared with selective blood transfusion (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67, one trial, 72 women; low-quality evidence), and no differences in the occurrence of acute splenic sequestration (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.92; low-quality evidence), haemolytic crises (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.06) or delayed blood transfusion reaction (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.54 to 7.39; very low-quality evidence) between the comparison groups.\nOther relevant maternal outcomes pre-specified for this review such as cumulative duration of hospital stay, postpartum haemorrhage and iron overload, and infant outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) and haemolytic disease of the newborn, were not reported by the trial.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence from one small trial of very low quality suggests that prophylactic blood transfusion to pregnant women with sickle cell anaemia (HbSS) confers no clear clinical benefits when compared with selective transfusion. Currently, there is no evidence from randomised or quasi-randomised trials to provide reliable advice on the optimal blood transfusion policy for women with other variants of sickle cell disease (i.e. HbSC and HbSβThal). The available data and quality of evidence on this subject are insufficient to advocate for a change in existing clinical practice and policy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What evidence did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for evidence on 30 May 2016 and identified one controlled trial, with an unclear risk of bias, that randomised 72 women with sickle cell anaemia (haemoglobin SS) before 28 weeks of gestation to one of the two blood transfusion policies. The trial indicated no difference in severe ill health and death of the mother or newborn. There was no difference in the risk of delayed blood transfusion reaction. The trial suggested giving blood at frequent intervals reduced the risk of pain crisis, with a large degree of uncertainty about the size of the effect, compared with giving blood only when medically indicated. Blood transfusion was delivered at a ratio of four to one for prophylactic versus selective blood transfusion, respectively. Overall, the quality of evidence for outcomes that are important to the woman is very low."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6369
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neuron disease (MND), causes increasing physical impairment and disability. People with ALS/MND face huge physical challenges, and the diagnosis can be a source of great psychological distress for both people with ALS/MND and their carers. In such a context, how news of the diagnosis is broken is important. At present, there are no systematic reviews of methods for informing people with ALS/MND of their diagnosis.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effects and effectiveness of different methods for informing people of a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease (ALS/MND), including effects on the person's knowledge and understanding of their disease, its treatment, and care; and on coping and adjustment to the effects of ALS/MND, its treatment, and care.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and two trials registers (February 2022). We contacted individuals or organisations to locate studies. We contacted study authors to obtain additional unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of techniques for informing people with ALS/MND of their diagnosis. We planned to include adults (aged 17 years or over) with ALS/MND, according to the El Escorial criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently reviewed the results of the search to identify RCTs, and three review authors identified non-randomised studies to include in the discussion section. We planned that two review authors would independently extract data, and three would assess the risk of bias in any included trials.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any RCTs that met our inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are no RCTs that evaluate different communication strategies for breaking the bad news for people diagnosed with ALS/MND.\nFocused research studies are needed to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of different communication methods.\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": "ALS, which is also known as MND, is an illness affecting the nerves that control movement. It causes increasing disability, including limb weakness, difficulty with breathing, and speech and swallowing problems. Most importantly, people with ALS/MND have to cope with the fact that ALS/MND usually leads to death within three to five years of onset. At diagnosis, people with ALS/MND, relatives, and carers can experience enormous distress, therefore, it is important to understand how to tell them the diagnosis. We carried out a wide search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of methods of communicating the diagnosis of ALS/MND."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6370
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMany women experience fear of childbirth (FOC). While fears about childbirth may be normal during pregnancy, some women experience high to severe FOC. At the extreme end of the fear spectrum is tocophobia, which is considered a specific condition that may cause distress, affect well-being during pregnancy and impede the transition to parenthood. Various interventions have been trialled, which support women to reduce and manage high to severe FOC, including tocophobia.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for reducing fear of childbirth (FOC) compared with standard maternity care in pregnant women with high to severe FOC, including tocophobia.\nSearch methods\nIn July 2020, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We contacted researchers of trials which were registered and appeared to be ongoing.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised clinical trials which recruited pregnant women with high or severe FOC (as defined by the individual trial), for treatment intended to reduce FOC. Two review authors independently screened and selected titles and abstracts for inclusion. We excluded quasi-randomised and cross-over trials.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological approaches as recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the studies for risk of bias. A third review author checked the data analysis for accuracy. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome was a reduction in FOC. Secondary outcomes were caesarean section, depression, birth preference for caesarean section or spontaneous vaginal delivery, and epidural use.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials with a total of 1357 participants. The interventions included psychoeducation, cognitive behavioural therapy, group discussion, peer education and art therapy.\nWe judged four studies as high or unclear risk of bias in terms of allocation concealment; we judged three studies as high risk in terms of incomplete outcome data; and in all studies, there was a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. None of the studies reported data about women's anxiety.\nParticipating in non-pharmacological interventions may reduce levels of fear of childbirth, as measured by the Wijma Delivery Expectancy Questionnaire (W-DEQ), but the reduction may not be clinically meaningful (mean difference (MD) -7.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.19 to -1.97; 7 studies, 828 women; low-certainty evidence). The W-DEQ tool is scored from 0 to 165 (higher score = greater fear).\nNon-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the number of women having a caesarean section (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 5 studies, 557 women; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThere may be little to no difference between non-pharmacological interventions and usual care in depression scores measured with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) (MD 0.09, 95% CI -1.23 to 1.40; 2 studies, 399 women; low-certainty evidence). The EPDS tool is scored from 0 to 30 (higher score = greater depression).\nNon-pharmacological interventions probably lead to fewer women preferring a caesarean section (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.89; 3 studies, 276 women; moderate-certainty evidence).\nNon-pharmacological interventions may increase epidural use compared with usual care, but the 95% CI includes the possibility of a slight reduction in epidural use (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.48; 2 studies, 380 women; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effect of non-pharmacological interventions for women with high to severe fear of childbirth in terms of reducing fear is uncertain. Fear of childbirth, as measured by W-DEQ, may be reduced but it is not certain if this represents a meaningful clinical reduction of fear. There may be little or no difference in depression, but there may be a reduction in caesarean section delivery. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and measure birth satisfaction and anxiety.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to find out if non-pharmacological (non-medicine) treatments were better than the standard maternity care provided to pregnant women in terms of:\n- reducing women’s level of fear, as measured by a widely-used questionnaire for childbirth fear;\n- reducing the number of women having a caesarean birthsection;\n- reducing anxiety and depression."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6371
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevalence of mental health problems is high, and they have a wide-ranging and deleterious effect on many sectors in society. As well as the impact on individuals and families, mental health problems in the workplace negatively affect productivity. One of the factors that may exacerbate the impact of mental health problems is a lack of 'mental health literacy' in the general population. This has been defined as 'knowledge and beliefs about mental disorders, which aid their recognition, management, or prevention'.\nMental Health First Aid (MHFA) is a brief training programme developed in Australia in 2000; its aim is to improve mental health literacy and teach mental health first aid strategies. The course has been adapted for various contexts, but essentially covers the symptoms of various mental health disorders, along with associated mental health crisis situations. The programmes also teach trainees how to provide immediate help to people experiencing mental health difficulties, as well as how to signpost to professional services. It is theorised that improved knowledge will encourage the trainees to provide support, and encourage people to actively seek help, thereby leading to improvements in mental health.\nThis review focuses on the effects of MHFA on the mental health and mental well-being of individuals and communities in which MHFA training has been provided. We also examine the impact on mental health literacy. This information is essential for decision-makers considering the role of MHFA training in their organisations.\nObjectives\nTo examine mental health and well-being, mental health service usage, and adverse effects of MHFA training on individuals in the communities in which MHFA training is delivered.\nSearch methods\nWe developed a sensitive search strategy to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of MHFA training. This approach used bibliographic databases searching, using a search strategy developed for Ovid MEDLINE (1946 -), and translated across to Ovid Embase (1974 -), Ovid PsycINFO (1967 -), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Specialised Register (CCMDCTR). We also searched online clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP), grey literature and reference lists of included studies, and contacted researchers in the field to identify additional and ongoing studies. Searches are current to 13th June 2023.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs and cluster-RCTs comparing any type of MHFA-trademarked course to no intervention, active or attention control (such as first aid courses), waiting list control, or alternative mental health literacy interventions. Participants were individuals in the communities in which MHFA training is delivered and MHFA trainees. Primary outcomes included mental health and well-being of individuals, mental health service usage and adverse effects of MHFA training. Secondary outcomes related to individuals, MHFA trainees, and communities or organisations in which MHFA training has been delivered\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. We analysed categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pooled data using a random-effects model. Two review authors independently assessed the key results using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and applied the GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of evidence\nMain results\nTwenty-one studies involving a total of 22,604 participants were included in the review. Fifteen studies compared MHFA training with no intervention/waiting list, two studies compared MHFA training with an alternative mental health literacy intervention, and four studies compared MHFA training with an active or an attention control intervention. Our primary time point was between six and 12 months.\nWhen MHFA training was compared with no intervention, it may have little to no effect on the mental health of individuals at six to 12 months, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.28; 3 studies; 3939 participants). We judged all the results that contributed to this outcome as being at high risk of bias. No study measured mental health service usage at six to 12 months. We did not find published data on adverse effects.\nOnly one study with usable data compared MHFA training with an alternative mental health literacy intervention. The study did not measure outcomes in individuals in the community. It also did not measure outcomes at our primary time point of six to 12 months.\nFour studies with usable data compared MHFA training to an active or attention control. None of the studies measured outcomes at our primary time point of six to 12 months.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe cannot draw conclusions about the effects of MHFA training on our primary outcomes due to the lack of good quality evidence. This is the case whether it is compared to no intervention, to an alternative mental health literacy intervention, or to an active control. Studies are at high risk of bias and often not sufficiently large to be able to detect differences.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Which studies were included in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for randomised controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) that examined MHFA training published up to June 2023.\nWe included 21 studies with 22,604 participants."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6372
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute limb ischaemia (ALI), the sudden and significant reduction of blood flow to the limb, is considered a vascular emergency. In the general population, the incidence is estimated as 14 per 100,000. Prognosis depends on the time it takes to diagnose the condition and begin appropriate treatment. Standard initial interventional treatments include conventional open surgery and endovascular interventions such as catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT). Percutaneous interventions, such as percutaneous thrombectomy (PT, including mechanical thrombectomy or pharmomechanical thrombectomy) and ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis (USAT), are also performed as alternative endovascular techniques. The proposed advantages of PT and USAT include reduced time to revascularisation and when combined with catheter-directed thrombolysis, a reduction in dose of thrombolytic agents and infusion time. The benefits of PT or USAT versus open surgery or thrombolysis alone are still uncertain. In this review, we compared PT or USAT against standard treatment for ALI, in an attempt to determine if any technique is comparatively safer and more effective.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous thrombectomy or ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis for the initial management of acute limb ischaemia in adults.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 3 March 2021. We searched reference lists of relevant studies and papers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared PT (any modality, including mechanical thrombectomy (aspiration, rheolysis, rotation) or pharmomechanical thrombectomy) or USAT with open surgery, thrombolysis alone, no treatment, or another PT modality for the treatment of ALI.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected the studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, performed data analysis, and assessed the certainty of evidence according to GRADE. Outcomes of interest were primary patency, amputation rate, major bleeding, clinical success, secondary patency, and adverse effects.\nMain results\nWe included one RCT in this review. This study had a total of 60 participants and compared USAT with standard treatment (CDT). The study included 32 participants in the CDT group and 28 participants in the USAT group.\nWe found no evidence of a difference between USAT and CDT alone for the following evaluated outcomes: amputation rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 7.59); major bleeding (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.31 to 9.53); clinical success (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07); and adverse effects (RR 5.69, 95% CI 0.28 to 113.72). We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for these outcomes. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for amputation rate, major bleeding, clinical success, and adverse effects by two levels due to serious limitations in the design (there was a high risk of bias in critical domains) and by two further levels due to imprecision (a small number of participants and only one study included). The study authors reported 30-day patency, but did not report primary and secondary patency separately. The patency rate in the successfully lysed participants was 71% (15/21) in the USAT group and 82% (22/27) in the CDT group. The study authors did not directly report secondary patency, which is patency after secondary procedures, but they did report on secondary procedures. Secondary procedures were subdivided into embolectomy and bypass grafting. Embolectomy was performed on 14% (4/28) of participants in the USAT group versus 3% (1/32) of participants in the CDT group. Bypass grafting was performed on 4% (1/28) of participants in the USAT group versus 0% in the CDT group. As we did not have access to the specific participant data, it was not possible to assess these outcomes further.\nWe did not identify studies comparing the other planned interventions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to assess the safety and effectiveness of USAT versus CDT alone for ALI for our evaluated outcomes: amputation rate, major bleeding, clinical success, and adverse effects. Primary and secondary patency were not reported separately. There was no RCT evidence for PT. Limitations of this systematic review derive from the single included study, small sample size, short clinical follow-up period, and high risk of bias in critical domains. For this reason, the applicability of the results is limited. There is a need for high-quality studies to compare PT or USAT against open surgery, thrombolysis alone, no treatment, or other PT modalities for ALI. Future trials should assess outcomes, such as primary patency, amputation rate, major bleeding, clinical success, secondary patency, and adverse effects.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is up to date to March 2021."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6373
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn people with acute ischaemic stroke, platelets become activated and can cause blood clots to form and block an artery in the brain, resulting in damage to part of the brain. Such damage gives rise to the symptoms of stroke. Antiplatelet therapy might reduce the volume of brain damaged by ischaemia and also reduce the risk of early recurrent ischaemic stroke, thereby reducing the risk of early death and improving long-term outcomes in survivors. However, antiplatelet therapy might also increase the risk of fatal or disabling intracranial haemorrhage.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of immediate oral antiplatelet therapy (i.e. started as soon as possible and no later than two weeks after stroke onset) in people with acute presumed ischaemic stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and two trials registers, and performed forward reference/cited reference searching in August 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral antiplatelet therapy (started within 14 days of the stroke) with control in people with definite or presumed ischaemic stroke.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and assessed trial quality. For the included trials, they extracted and cross-checked the data. They assessed risk of bias of each study using the Risk of Bias 1 (RoB1) tool and overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 11 studies involving 42,226 participants. Three new trials have been added since the last update (743 participants). As per the previous version of this review, two trials testing aspirin 160 mg to 300 mg once daily, started within 48 hours of onset, contributed 96% of the data. The risk of bias was low. The maximum follow-up was six months. With treatment, there was a decrease in death or dependency at the end of follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 0.99; 7 RCTs, 42,034 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 people treated with aspirin, 13 people would avoid death or dependency (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 79).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAntiplatelet therapy with aspirin 160 mg to 300 mg daily, given orally (or by nasogastric tube or per rectum in people who cannot swallow) and started within 48 hours of onset of presumed ischaemic stroke, significantly decreased death and dependency, and reduced the risk of early recurrent ischaemic stroke without a major risk of early haemorrhagic complications; long-term outcomes were improved.\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": "Aspirin, at a dose of 160 mg to 300 mg daily, started within 48 hours of the onset of stroke symptoms, saved lives and reduced the risk of further stroke occurring in the first two weeks. If treatment was started more than 48 hours after onset but within 14 days, the limited evidence from this review and other external data suggest that aspirin is of benefit even starting at this late stage. Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin 160 mg to 300 mg daily, given orally (or by a tube through the nose and into the stomach or by the rectum in people who cannot swallow) and started within 48 hours of onset of presumed ischaemic stroke, reduced the risk of early recurrent ischaemic stroke without a major risk of early haemorrhagic complications; long-term outcomes were improved. Almost all the evidence in this review came from trials of aspirin."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6374
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nWork-related musculoskeletal disorders are a group of musculoskeletal disorders that comprise one of the most common disorders related to occupational sick leave worldwide. Musculoskeletal disorders accounted for 21% to 28% of work absenteeism days in 2017/2018 in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. There are several interventions that may be effective in tackling the high prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among workers, such as physical, cognitive and organisational interventions. In this review, we will focus on work breaks as a measure of primary prevention, which are a type of organisational intervention.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness of different work-break schedules for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders in healthy workers, when compared to conventional or alternate work-break schedules.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to April/May 2019. In addition, we searched references of the included studies and of relevant literature reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of work-break interventions for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders among workers. The studies were eligible for inclusion when intervening on work-break frequency, duration and/or type, compared to conventional or an alternate work-break intervention. We included only those studies in which the investigated population included healthy, adult workers, who were free of musculoskeletal complaints during study enrolment, without restrictions to sex or occupation. The primary outcomes were newly diagnosed musculoskeletal disorders, self-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, and productivity or work performance. We considered workload changes as secondary outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional study data where required. We performed meta-analyses, where possible, and we assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome of each comparison using the five GRADE considerations.\nMain results\nWe included six studies (373 workers), four parallel RCTs, one cross-over RCT, and one combined parallel plus cross-over RCT. At least 295 of the employees were female and at least 39 male; for the remaining 39 employees, the sex was not specified in the study trial. The studies investigated different work-break frequencies (five studies) and different work-break types (two studies). None of the studies investigated different work-break durations. We judged all studies to have a high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of self-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue was low; the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of productivity and work performance was very low. The studies were executed in Europe or Northern America, with none from low- to middle-income countries. One study could not be included in the data analyses, because no detailed results have been reported.\nChanges in the frequency of work breaks\nThere is low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may not have a considerable effect on musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, when compared with no additional work breaks (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.08; 95% CI -0.35 to 0.18; three studies; 225 participants). Additional breaks may not have a positive effect on productivity or work performance, when compared with no additional work breaks (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.19; three studies; 225 participants; very low-quality evidence).\nWe found low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue (MD 1.80 on a 100-mm VAS scale; 95% CI -41.07 to 64.37; one study; 15 participants), when compared to work breaks as needed (i.e. microbreaks taken at own discretion). There is very low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may have a positive effect on productivity or work performance, when compared to work breaks as needed (MD 542.5 number of words typed per 3-hour recording session; 95% CI 177.22 to 907.78; one study; 15 participants).\nAdditional higher frequency work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue (MD 11.65 on a 100-mm VAS scale; 95% CI -41.07 to 64.37; one study; 10 participants; low-quality evidence), when compared to additional lower frequency work breaks. We found very low-quality evidence that additional higher frequency work breaks may not have a considerable effect on productivity or work performance (MD -83.00 number of words typed per 3-hour recording session; 95% CI -305.27 to 139.27; one study; 10 participants), when compared to additional lower frequency work breaks.\nChanges in the duration of work breaks\nNo trials were identified that assessed the effect of different durations of work breaks.\nChanges in the type of work break\nWe found low-quality evidence that active breaks may not have a considerable positive effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue (MD -0.17 on a 1-7 NRS scale; 95% CI -0.71 to 0.37; one study; 153 participants), when compared to passive work breaks.\nRelaxation work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, when compared to physical work breaks (MD 0.20 on a 1-7 NRS scale; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.82; one study; 97 participants; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low-quality evidence that different work-break frequencies may have no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue. For productivity and work performance, evidence was of very low-quality that different work-break frequencies may have a positive effect. For different types of break, there may be no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue according to low-quality evidence. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of frequency, duration and type of work-break interventions among workers, if possible, with much higher sample sizes than the studies included in the current review. Furthermore, work-break interventions should be reconsidered, taking into account worker populations other than office workers, and taking into account the possibility of combining work-break intervention with other interventions such as ergonomic training or counselling, which may may possibly have an effect on musculoskeletal outcomes and work performance.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Studies\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We selected several primary outcome measures, including newly diagnosed musculoskeletal disorders, participant-reported musculoskeletal symptoms including pain, discomfort and fatigue, and productivity and work performance. The latter measure is not directly relevant to the worker but rather to the employer when it comes to maintaining business output. We selected changes in workload as a secondary outcome measure, which may include force output changes, electromyographic (recording of the electrical activity of muscles using electrodes) manifestations of muscle fatigue, or subjective change in workload (NASA-TLX). None of the included studies reported any newly diagnosed musculoskeletal disorders or workload changes.\nWe searched the literature until 2 May 2019 to find randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cross-over RCTs of work-break interventions aimed at preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders at work. We analysed all relevant studies to answer the research question and found six studies involving 373 workers, the majority of whom were female (≥ 78%), with a follow-up period of two to 10 weeks."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6375
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcne vulgaris is a very common skin problem that presents with blackheads, whiteheads, and inflamed spots. It frequently results in physical scarring and may cause psychological distress. The use of oral and topical treatments can be limited in some people due to ineffectiveness, inconvenience, poor tolerability or side-effects. Some studies have suggested promising results for light therapies.\nObjectives\nTo explore the effects of light treatment of different wavelengths for acne.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to September 2015: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We searched ISI Web of Science and Dissertation Abstracts International (from inception). We also searched five trials registers, and grey literature sources. We checked the reference lists of studies and reviews and consulted study authors and other experts in the field to identify further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We updated these searches in July 2016 but these results have not yet been incorporated into the review.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs of light for treatment of acne vulgaris, regardless of language or publication status.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 71 studies, randomising a total of 4211 participants.\nMost studies were small (median 31 participants) and included participants with mild to moderate acne of both sexes and with a mean age of 20 to 30 years. Light interventions differed greatly in wavelength, dose, active substances used in photodynamic therapy (PDT), and comparator interventions (most commonly no treatment, placebo, another light intervention, or various topical treatments). Numbers of light sessions varied from one to 112 (most commonly two to four). Frequency of application varied from twice daily to once monthly.\nSelection and performance bias were unclear in the majority of studies. Detection bias was unclear for participant-assessed outcomes and low for investigator-assessed outcomes in the majority of studies. Attrition and reporting bias were low in over half of the studies and unclear or high in the rest. Two thirds of studies were industry-sponsored; study authors either reported conflict of interest, or such information was not declared, so we judged the risk of bias as unclear.\nComparisons of most interventions for our first primary outcome 'Participant's global assessment of improvement' were not possible due to the variation in the interventions and the way the studies' outcomes were measured. We did not combine the effect estimates but rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the comparison of light therapies, including PDT to placebo, no treatment, topical treatment or other comparators for this outcome. One study which included 266 participants with moderate to severe acne showed little or no difference in effectiveness for this outcome between 20% aminolevulinic acid (ALA)-PDT (activated by blue light) versus vehicle plus blue light (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.04, low-quality evidence). A study (n = 180) of a comparison of ALA-PDT (activated by red light) concentrations showed 20% ALA was no more effective than 15% (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.15) but better than 10% ALA (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.42) and 5% ALA (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.81). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 6 (95% CI 3 to 19) and 4 (95% CI 2 to 6) for the comparison of 20% ALA with 10% and 5% ALA, respectively.\nFor our second primary outcome 'Investigator-assessed changes in lesion counts', we combined three RCTs, with 360 participants with moderate to severe acne and found methyl aminolevulinate (MAL) PDT (activated by red light) was no different to placebo cream plus red light with regard to change in inflamed lesions (ILs) (mean difference (MD) -2.85, 95% CI -7.51 to 1.81), percentage change in ILs (MD -10.09, 95% CI -20.25 to 0.06), change in non-inflamed lesions (NILs) (MD -2.01, 95% CI -7.07 to 3.05), or in percentage change in NILs (MD -8.09, 95% CI -21.51 to 5.32). We assessed the evidence as moderate quality for these outcomes meaning that there is little or no clinical difference between these two interventions for lesion counts.\nStudies comparing the effects of other interventions were inconsistent or had small samples and high risk of bias. We performed only narrative synthesis for the results of the remaining trials, due to great variation in many aspects of the studies, poor reporting, and failure to obtain necessary data. Several studies compared yellow light to placebo or no treatment, infrared light to no treatment, gold microparticle suspension to vehicle, and clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide combined with pulsed dye laser to clindamycin/benzoyl peroxide alone. There were also several other studies comparing MAL-PDT to light-only treatment, to adapalene and in combination with long-pulsed dye laser to long-pulsed dye laser alone. None of these showed any clinically significant effects.\nOur third primary outcome was 'Investigator-assessed severe adverse effects'. Most studies reported adverse effects, but not adequately with scarring reported as absent, and blistering reported only in studies on intense pulsed light, infrared light and photodynamic therapies. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low, meaning we were uncertain of the adverse effects of the light therapies.\nAlthough our primary endpoint was long-term outcomes, less than half of the studies performed assessments later than eight weeks after final treatment. Only a few studies assessed outcomes at more than three months after final treatment, and longer-term assessments are mostly not covered in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigh-quality evidence on the use of light therapies for people with acne is lacking. There is low certainty of the usefulness of MAL-PDT (red light) or ALA-PDT (blue light) as standard therapies for people with moderate to severe acne.\nCarefully planned studies, using standardised outcome measures, comparing the effectiveness of common acne treatments with light therapies would be welcomed, together with adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We are unable to draw firm conclusions from the results of our review, as it was not clear whether the light therapies (including PDT) assessed in these studies were more effective than the other comparators tested such as placebo, no treatment, or treatments rubbed on the skin, nor how long the possible benefits lasted."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6376
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDischarge planning is a routine feature of health systems in many countries that aims to reduce delayed discharge from hospital, and improve the co-ordination of services following discharge from hospital and reduce the risk of hospital readmission. This is the fifth update of the original review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of planning the discharge of individual patients moving from hospital.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two trials registers on 20 April 2021. We searched two other databases up to 31 March 2020. We also conducted reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials that compared an individualised discharge plan with routine discharge that was not tailored to individual participants. Participants were hospital inpatients.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently undertook data analysis and quality assessment using a pre-designed data extraction sheet. We grouped studies by older people with a medical condition, people recovering from surgery, and studies that recruited participants with a mix of conditions. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data using fixed-effect meta-analysis. When combining outcome data it was not possible because of differences in the reporting of outcomes, we summarised the reported results for each trial in the text.\nMain results\nWe included 33 trials (12,242 participants), four new trials included in this update. The majority of trials (N = 30) recruited participants with a medical diagnosis, average age range 60 to 84 years; four of these trials also recruited participants who were in hospital for a surgical procedure. Participants allocated to discharge planning and who were in hospital for a medical condition had a small reduction in the initial hospital length of stay (MD − 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) − 1.33 to − 0.12; 11 trials, 2113 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and a relative reduction in readmission to hospital over an average of three months follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; 17 trials, 5126 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little or no difference in participant's health status (mortality at three- to nine-month follow-up: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.29; 8 trials, 2721 participants; moderate certainty) functional status and psychological health measured by a range of measures, 12 studies, 2927 participants; low certainty evidence). There was some evidence that satisfaction might be increased for patients (7 trials), caregivers (1 trial) or healthcare professionals (2 trials) (very low certainty evidence). The cost of a structured discharge plan compared with routine discharge is uncertain (7 trials recruiting 7873 participants with a medical condition; very low certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nA structured discharge plan that is tailored to the individual patient probably brings about a small reduction in the initial hospital length of stay and readmissions to hospital for older people with a medical condition, may slightly increase patient satisfaction with healthcare received. The impact on patient health status and healthcare resource use or cost to the health service is uncertain.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The aim of this review was to find out if discharge planning that is tailored to an individual improves the quality of health care delivered by reducing delayed discharge from hospital, reducing transfer back to hospital and improving patients' health status. We also wanted to know how much the intervention cost. We collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question. This is the fifth update of the original review."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6377
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the first update of a review published in 2010. While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are often recommended as a first-line drug to treat hypertension, the effect of CCBs on the prevention of cardiovascular events, as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes, is still debated.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether CCBs used as first-line therapy for hypertension are different from other classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events.\nSearch methods\nFor this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 1 September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials. The searches had no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing first-line CCBs with other antihypertensive classes, with at least 100 randomised hypertensive participants and a follow-up of at least two years.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias, and entered the data for analysis. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. We contacted study authors for additional information.\nMain results\nThis update contains five new trials. We included a total of 23 RCTs (18 dihydropyridines, 4 non-dihydropyridines, 1 not specified) with 153,849 participants with hypertension. All-cause mortality was not different between first-line CCBs and any other antihypertensive classes. As compared to diuretics, CCBs probably increased major cardiovascular events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09, P = 0.03) and increased congestive heart failure events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.51, moderate-certainty evidence). As compared to beta-blockers, CCBs reduced the following outcomes: major cardiovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88, moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCBs reduced stroke (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), CCBs reduced myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94, moderate-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36, low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor the treatment of hypertension, there is moderate certainty evidence that diuretics reduce major cardiovascular events and congestive heart failure more than CCBs. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs probably reduce major cardiovascular events more than beta-blockers. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs reduced stroke when compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and reduced myocardial infarction when compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but increased congestive heart failure when compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Many of the differences found in the current review are not robust, and further trials might change the conclusions. More well-designed RCTs studying the mortality and morbidity of individuals taking CCBs as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes are needed for patients with different stages of hypertension, different ages, and with different comorbidities such as diabetes.\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": "Appropriate lowering of elevated blood pressure in individuals with hypertension can reduce the amount of major complications of hypertension, such as stroke, heart attack, congestive heart failure, and even death. CCBs are used as a first-line blood pressure-lowering medication, but whether this is the best way to reduce harmful cardiovascular events has been a matter of debate."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6378
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAfter decades of decline since 2005, the global prevalence of undernourishment reverted and since 2015 has increased to levels seen in 2010 to 2011. The prevalence is highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially Africa and Asia. Food insecurity and associated undernutrition detrimentally affect health and socioeconomic development in the short and long term, for individuals, including children, and societies. Physical and economic access to food is crucial to ensure food security. Community-level interventions could be important to increase access to food in LMICs.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of community-level interventions that aim to improve access to nutritious food in LMICs, for both the whole community and for disadvantaged or at-risk individuals or groups within a community, such as infants, children and women; elderly, poor or unemployed people; or minority groups.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for relevant studies in 16 electronic databases, including trial registries, from 1980 to September 2019, and updated the searches in six key databases in February 2020. We applied no language or publication status limits.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) and prospective controlled studies (PCS). All population groups, adults and children, living in communities in LMICs exposed to community-level interventions aiming to improve food access were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that only included participants with specific diseases or conditions (e.g. severely malnourished children).\nEligible interventions were broadly categorised into those that improved buying power (e.g. create income-generation opportunities, cash transfer schemes); addressed food prices (e.g. vouchers and subsidies); addressed infrastructure and transport that affected physical access to food outlets; addressed the social environment and provided social support (e.g. social support from family, neighbours or government).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible records, against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or arbitration by a third author, if necessary.\nFor each included study, two authors independently extracted data and a third author arbitrated disagreements. However, the outcome data were extracted by one author and checked by a biostatistician.\nWe assessed risk of bias for all studies using the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) risk of bias tool for studies with a separate control group.\nWe conducted meta-analyses if there was a minimum of two studies for interventions within the same category, reporting the same outcome measure and these were sufficiently homogeneous. Where we were able to meta-analyse, we used the random-effects model to incorporate any existing heterogeneity. Where we were unable to conduct meta-analyses, we synthesised using vote counting based on effect direction.\nMain results\nWe included 59 studies, including 214 to 169,485 participants, and 300 to 124, 644 households, mostly from Africa and Latin America, addressing the following six intervention types (three studies assessed two different types of interventions).\nInterventions that improved buying power:\nUnconditional cash transfers (UCTs) (16 cRCTs, two RCTs, three PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that UCTs improve food security and make little or no difference to cognitive function and development and low-certainty evidence that UCTs may increase dietary diversity and may reduce stunting. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of UCTs on the proportion of household expenditure on food, and on wasting. Regarding adverse outcomes, evidence from one trial indicates that UCTs reduce the proportion of infants who are overweight.\nConditional cash transfers (CCTs) (nine cRCTs, five PCSs): we found high-certainty evidence that CCTs result in little to no difference in the proportion of household expenditure on food and that they slightly improve cognitive function in children; moderate-certainty evidence that CCTs probably slightly improve dietary diversity and low-certainty evidence that they may make little to no difference to stunting or wasting. Evidence on adverse outcomes (two PCSs) shows that CCTs make no difference to the proportion of overweight children.\nIncome generation interventions (six cRCTs, 11 PCSs): we found moderate-certainty evidence that income generation interventions probably make little or no difference to stunting or wasting; and low-certainty evidence that they may result in little to no difference to food security or that they may improve dietary diversity in children, but not for households.\nInterventions that addressed food prices:\nFood vouchers (three cRCTs, one RCT): we found moderate-certainty evidence that food vouchers probably reduce stunting; and low-certainty evidence that that they may improve dietary diversity slightly, and may result in little to no difference in wasting.\nFood and nutrition subsidies (one cRCT, three PCSs): we found low-certainty evidence that food and nutrition subsidies may improve dietary diversity among school children. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects on household expenditure on healthy foods as a proportion of total expenditure on food (very low-certainty evidence).\nInterventions that addressed the social environment:\nSocial support interventions (one cRCT, one PCS): we found moderate-certainty evidence that community grants probably make little or no difference to wasting; low-certainty evidence that they may make little or no difference to stunting. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of village savings and loans on food security and dietary diversity.\nNone of the included studies addressed the intervention category of infrastructure changes. In addition, none of the studies reported on one of the primary outcomes of this review, namely prevalence of undernourishment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe body of evidence indicates that UCTs can improve food security. Income generation interventions do not seem to make a difference for food security, but the evidence is unclear for the other interventions. CCTs, UCTs, interventions that help generate income, interventions that help minimise impact of food prices through food vouchers and subsidies can potentially improve dietary diversity. UCTs and food vouchers may have a potential impact on reducing stunting, but CCTs, income generation interventions or social environment interventions do not seem to make a difference on wasting or stunting. CCTs seem to positively impact cognitive function and development, but not UCTs, which may be due to school attendance, healthcare visits and other conditionalities associated with CCTs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Interventions that addressed the social environment\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": ""
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6379
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease is a group of genetic diseases which is especially prevalent in tropical and subtropical regions; however, forced migration and ongoing population movement have spread it throughout the world, with estimated birth rates reaching 0.49 per 1000 in the Americas, 0.07 per 1000 in Europe, 0.68 per 1000 in South and Southeast Asia, and 10.68 per 1000 in Africa. Life for individuals with sickle cell disease can be affected by repeated acute complications and compounded by progressive organ damage. Studies reveal that when people with chronic illness learn self-management, their clinical outcomes and quality of life improves; and they show lower dependence on healthcare services. There are, however, no reviews identifying which interventions improve knowledge and little is known about the impact of patient or care-giver knowledge on clinical and psychosocial outcomes in people with sickle cell disease.\nObjectives\n1. To determine the effectiveness of patient- and caregiver-centred educational interventions for changing knowledge and understanding of sickle cell disease among patients as well as caregivers of people with the disease.\n2. To assess the effectiveness and safety of patient- and caregiver-centred educational interventions and programs for the recognition of signs and symptoms of disease-related morbidity, adherence to treatment and healthcare utilization in patients with sickle cell disease.\nSearch methods\nThe authors searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Additional trials were sought from the reference lists of the trials and reviews identified by the search strategy.\nDate of last search: 11 April 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials which evaluate the effectiveness of individual- and group-based interventions for either the patient with sickle cell disease or their caregivers, or both. Eligible interventions will aim to change knowledge, attitudes or skills, improve psychosocial aspects of the disease as well as treatment adherence and healthcare utilization. Trials evaluating the intervention versus no program, comparing two interventions and those which are part of a multi-faceted intervention to improve a range of sickle cell-related health outcomes are all eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials based on stated inclusion criteria and thereafter examined each selected report to extract data using a prepared, piloted, data collection form. A third author assisted in reaching consensus if there were any discrepancies. Similarly, risk of bias was assessed by two authors and verified by a third author.\nMain results\nA total of 12 trials (11 randomized controlled trials and one quasi-randomized trial) of 563 people with HbSS, HbSC or HbSβthal, aged six to 35 years old, were included in the review; the majority of participants were African-American. Interventions ranged from a total of one hour to weekly sessions for eight weeks and the post-intervention assessments ranged from the end of the intervention period to 12 months after completion. The heterogeneity of the included trials, which encompasses setting, inclusion and exclusion criteria, interventional method and time of assessment, ranged from 'not important' to 'moderate to substantial' for different review outcomes. The overall risk of bias was low for selective reporting, unclear for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and blinding of outcome assessment. Incomplete outcome reporting and blinding of personnel showed mixed bias representations.\nPatient knowledge was assessed by four trials (160 participants) with moderate to substantial heterogeneity. There was evidence that educational programs improved patient knowledge, standardised mean difference 0.87 points (95% confidence interval 0.28 to 1.45, moderate quality evidence), which improved further when a trial with high bias was removed in a sensitivity analysis. Caregiver knowledge, reported in a single trial of 20 families, also showed an improvement, standardised mean difference 0.52 points (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 1.00, moderate quality evidence). The effect on patient knowledge was sustained at longer follow-up periods, whereas the effect on caregiver knowledge was not sustained.\nThere were two primary outcomes related to the effectiveness of educational programs on the recognition of signs and symptoms of disease-related morbidity. No comparative data were reported for patients or caregivers (or both) recognising signs and symptoms leading to self-management. Data from two trials were analysed for the utilization of health services and showed no evidence of an effect, mean difference 0.33 (95% confidence interval -0.57 to 1.23, moderate quality evidence).\nWith regard to the review's secondary outcomes, depression showed a statistically significant decline in intervention groups, standardised mean difference -0.66 points (95% confidence interval -1.18, to -0.14, moderate quality evidence). Adherence to treatment was not assessed in any of the identified trials. No effects of interventions were seen on coping, family relationships or health-related quality of life of patients.\nThe quality of evidence was low for positive coping and moderate for child knowledge, healthcare utilization and depression. This suggests that further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimates.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review identifies important positive effects of educational interventions on improving patient knowledge of sickle cell disease and depression. Effects on patients' knowledge were maintained for longer than for caregivers. The effect on knowledge was significant but small and whether it offers any clinical benefit is uncertain. Significant factors limiting these effects could be trials being under powered as well as attrition rates. Effects were not statistically significant in assessments of secondary outcomes, possibly due to the paucity of the number of trials and patients and caregivers. Trials showed moderate to high heterogeneity which might impact the results. To better study effects on outcomes, further controlled trials are needed with rigorous attention given to improve recruitment and retention and to decrease bias. Predetermined protocols using similar measurements should be used across multiple sites.\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": "Educational programs and other interventions have resulted in improvements in patient knowledge or understanding of sickle cell disease, and a decrease in depression. Effects on patients' knowledge were maintained for longer than for caregivers. The effects are shown to be small but may result from the fact that most studies had very small numbers of participants and there was much variation between studies. The interventions studied showed no effect on patients' utilization of health services, relationships between families, caregiver or patient skills, coping or health-related quality of life of the patient. No comparative data were reported for patients or caregivers (or both) recognising signs and symptoms leading to self-management. No trials assessed the adherence to treatment."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6380
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) is one of the most controversial diagnoses in clinical medicine. Despite many reports of operative and non-operative interventions, rigorous scientific investigation of this syndrome leading to evidence-based management is lacking. This is the first update of a review first published in 2010.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the beneficial and adverse effects of the available operative and non-operative interventions for the treatment of TOS a minimum of six months after the intervention.\nSearch methods\nOn 23 June 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials Specialized Register, CENTRAL, The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus and AMED. We also searched reference lists of the identified trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomized or quasi-randomized studies involving participants with the diagnosis of TOS of any type (neurogenic, vascular, and 'disputed'), without limitations as to language of publication.\nWe accepted studies that examined any intervention aimed at treating TOS.\nThe primary outcome measure was change in pain rating, measured on a validated visual analog or similar scale at least six months after the intervention.\nThe secondary outcomes were change in muscle strength, disability, experiences of paresthesias (numbness and tingling sensations), and adverse effects of the interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nThree authors independently selected the trials to be included and extracted data. Authors rated included studies for risk of bias, according to the methods recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nThis review was complicated by a lack of generally accepted criteria for the diagnosis of TOS and had to rely exclusively on the diagnosis of TOS by the investigators in the reviewed studies. We identified one study comparing natural progression with an active intervention. We found three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but only two of them had a follow-up of six months or more, which was the minimum required follow-up for inclusion in the review. The first trial that met our requirements involved 55 participants with the 'disputed type' of TOS and compared transaxillary first rib resection (TFRR) with supraclavicular neuroplasty of the brachial plexus (SNBP). The trial had a high risk of bias. TFRR decreased pain more than SNBP. There were no adverse effects in either group. The second trial that met these requirements analyzed 37 people with TOS of any type, comparing treatment with a botulinum toxin (BTX) injection into the scalene muscles with a saline placebo injection. This trial had a low risk of bias. There was no significant effect of treatment with the BTX injection over placebo in terms of pain relief or improvements in disability, but it did significantly improve paresthesias at six months' follow-up. There were no adverse events of the BTX treatment above saline injection.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review was complicated by a lack of generally accepted diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of TOS. There was very low quality evidence that transaxillary first rib resection decreased pain more than supraclavicular neuroplasty, but no randomized evidence that either is better than no treatment. There is moderate evidence to suggest that treatment with BTX injections yielded no great improvements over placebo injections of saline. There is no evidence from RCTs for the use of other currently used treatments. There is a need for an agreed definition for the diagnosis of TOS, especially the disputed form, agreed outcome measures, and high quality randomized trials that compare the outcome of interventions with no treatment and with each other.\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": "TOS is one of the most controversial diagnoses in medicine. The term TOS represents three related syndromes: a form where the brachial plexus (a collection of nerves in the neck and armpit) is compressed; a form where major blood vessels of the upper chest are compressed; and painful non-specific or disputed TOS. The person with TOS may have symptoms such as pain in the shoulder and neck that can spread into the arm and front of the chest; weakness; change in sensation; swelling; and a restricted blood supply to the affected arm. The various causes of TOS include an extra rib in the neck, differences in the shape of the bones of the spinal column, abnormal bands of tissue beneath the skin, and abnormalities of how muscles in the side of the neck attach to the bones. TOS is often associated with past injury.\nThere is a lack of widely accepted standards for making the diagnosis of TOS, so for the purpose of this review we decided to rely on the diagnosis of TOS made by the investigators in the reviewed studies. TOS is often diagnosed after other causes of one-sided symptoms of arm pain, weakness, loss of feeling, or all three, have been ruled out. Most people diagnosed with TOS have the disputed form.\nWe searched widely for clinical trials of treatments for TOS. We wanted to discover whether any treatment is effective and whether treatments have any harmful effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6381
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBacterial vaginosis (BV) is an infection that has a prevalence between 10% to 50% worlwide. BV results in an imbalance of the normal vaginal flora. Microorganisms associated with BV have been isolated from the normal flora of the male genital tract, and their presence could be related to the recurrence of BV after antibiotic treatment. Therefore, the treatment of sexual partners could decrease the recurrence of infection and possibly the burden of the disease.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness in women and the safety in men of concurrent antibiotic treatment for the sexual partners of women treated for BV.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Group Specialized Register (23 July 2016), CENTRAL (1991 to 23 July 2016), MEDLINE (1946 to 23 July 2016), Embase (1974 to 23 July 2016), LILACS (1982 to 23 July 2016), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (23 July 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (23 July 2016) and the Web of Science™ (2001 to 23 July 2016). We also handsearched conference proceedings, contacted trial authors and reviewed the reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the concurrent use of any antibiotic treatment with placebo, no intervention or any other intervention by the sexual partners of women treated for BV.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We resolved any disagreements through consensus. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nSeven RCTs (1026 participants) met our inclusion criteria, and pharmaceutical industry funded four of these trials. Five trials (854 patients) compared any antibiotic treatment of sexual partners with placebo. Based on high quality evidence, antibiotic treatment does not increase the rate of clinical or symptomatic improvement in women during the first week (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.03; 712 participants, four studies; RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 577 patients, three studies, respectively), between the first and fourth week (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 590 participants, three studies; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; 444 participants, two studies; respectively) or after the fourth week (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; 572 participants, four studies; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.17; 296 participants, two studies; respectively). Antibiotic treatment does not led to a lower recurrence during the first and fourth week (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.43; 218 participants, one study; low quality evidence) or after the fourth week of treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.52; 372 participants, three studies; low quality evidence) in women, but increases the frequency of adverse events (most frequently gastrointestinal symptoms) reported by sexual partners (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.18; 477 participants, three studies; low quality evidence).\n\nTwo trials (172 participants) compared any antibiotic treatment for sexual partners with no intervention. When we compared it with no intervention, the effects of antibiotic treatment on recurrence rate after the fourth week (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 4.55; 51 participants, one study), clinical improvement between the first and fourth week (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.25; 152 participants, two studies) and symptomatic improvement after the fourth week (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.11; 70 participants, one study) were imprecise and there were no differences between groups. We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low or very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigh quality evidence shows that antibiotic treatment for sexual partners of women with BV, compared with placebo, does not increase the rate of clinical or symptomatic improvement during the first, between the first and fourth or after the fourth week into the women. Low quality evidence suggests that antibiotic treatment does not led to a lower recurrence rate during the first and fourth or after the fourth week of treatment into the women, but increases the frequency of adverse events reported by sexual partners. Finally, compared with no intervention, antibiotic treatment does not decrease the recurrence rate after the fourth week and does not increase the frequency of clinical or symptomatic improvement between the first and fourth or after the fourth week into the women, respectively.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We assessed the effectiveness in women and the safety in men of concurrent antibiotic treatment for the sexual partners of women treated for bacterial vaginosis (BV)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6382
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPrimary autoimmune haemolytic anaemia (AIHA) is an autoantibody mediated condition characterised by a variable disease course. A myriad of immunomodulatory agents have been employed but there is a paucity of evidence to support their use or compare their effectiveness.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of various disease-modifying treatment modalities in people with AHIHA.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to 2021), Embase (Ovid) (1974 to 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to 2021), and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL). Clinical trial registries and relevant conference proceedings were also reviewed. Records were included as of 7 March 2021. We did not impose any language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory treatments against no treatment, placebo, or another immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory treatment, for people of all age with idiopathic AIHA.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The prioritised pre-defined outcomes included complete haematological response at 12 months, frequency of adverse events at two, six and 12 months, partial haematological response at 12 months, overall survival at six and 12 months, relapse-free survival (RFS) at six and 12 months, red blood cel (RBC) transfusion requirement after treatment at 12 months, and quality of life (QOL) as measured by validated instruments at 12 months. Based on data availability, we were only able to perform meta-analysis on frequency of complete haematological response.\nMain results\nTwo trials were included, enrolling a total of 104 adult participants (96 randomised) with warm AIHA in the setting of tertiary referral centres, both comparing the effectiveness between rituximab (375 mg/m2 weekly for four weeks, or 1000 mg for two doses two weeks apart) plus glucocorticoid (prednisolone 1.5 or 1mg/kg/day with taper) and glucocorticoid monotherapy. The average age of participants in the two trials were 67 and 71, respectively. One of the included studies had good methodological quality with low risk of bias, whereas the other study had high risk of performance and detection bias due to lack of blinding. Compared with glucocorticoid alone, adding rituximab may result in a large increase of complete response at 12 months (n = 96, risk ratio (RR) 2.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 3.40, GRADE: low-certainty evidence).\nRates of adverse effects at prespecified time-points were not reported.\nLimited data on partial haematological response were reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of adding rituximab to glucocorticoids on partial haematological response at 12 months (n = 32; study = 1; RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 68.57; GRADE very low-certainty evidence).\nRBC transfusion need at 12 months was reported in one study, with four participants (mean number of packed red cell units 4.0 ± 2.82) from the rituximab group and five participants from the placebo (corticosteroid only) (mean number of packed red cell units 5.6 ± 4.15) group requiring transfusion, indicating very uncertain evidence about the effect of adding rituximab to glucocorticoids (n = 32, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.45, GRADE very low-certainty evidence). The other study did not report transfusion requirement at prespecified time points but reported no difference in transfusion requirement between the two groups when comparing responders from enrolment to end of response or to the end of study follow-up (34 units versus 30 units, median [range]: 0 [1 to 6] versus 0 [1 to 5], P = 0·81).\nOverall survival and RFS rates at prespecified time-points were not explicitly reported in either study. Data on QOL were not available.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAvailable literature on the effectiveness of immunomodulatory therapy for primary AIHA is restricted to comparison between rituximab plus glucocorticoid and glucocorticoid alone, in patients with newly diagnosed warm AIHA, calling for need for additional studies. The current result suggests that combinatory therapy with rituximab and glucocorticoid may increase the rate of complete haematological response over glucocorticoid monotherapy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"At 12 months after beginning treatment, rituximab and steroid appear to help more people recover from primary AIHA than steroid alone.\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "At 12 months after beginning treatment, rituximab and steroid appear to help more people recover from primary AIHA than steroid alone.Researchers think the quality of this research finding is low. They think future research is likely to change these results.\n· At six months after beginning treatment, there was no difference in recovery between the adults treated with rituximab and a steroid and those treated with a steroid alone."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6383
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA medication review can be defined as a structured evaluation of a patient's medication conducted by healthcare professionals with the aim of optimising medication use and improving health outcomes. Optimising medication therapy though medication reviews may benefit hospitalised patients.\nObjectives\nWe examined the effects of medication review interventions in hospitalised adult patients compared to standard care or to other types of medication reviews on all-cause mortality, hospital readmissions, emergency department contacts and health-related quality of life.\nSearch methods\nIn this Cochrane Review update, we searched for new published and unpublished trials using the following electronic databases from 1 January 2014 to 17 January 2022 without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). To identify additional trials, we searched the reference lists of included trials and other publications by lead trial authors, and contacted experts.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials of medication reviews delivered by healthcare professionals for hospitalised adult patients. We excluded trials including outpatients and paediatric patients.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for data clarification and relevant unpublished data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nIn this updated review, we included a total of 25 trials (15,076 participants), of which 15 were new trials (11,501 participants). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 20 months. We found that medication reviews in hospitalised adults may have little to no effect on mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 18 trials, 10,108 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce hospital readmissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 17 trials, 9561 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce emergency department contacts (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.03; 8 trials, 3527 participants; low-certainty evidence) and have very uncertain effects on health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.30; 4 trials, 392 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nMedication reviews in hospitalised adult patients likely reduce hospital readmissions and may reduce emergency department contacts. The evidence suggests that mediation reviews may have little to no effect on mortality, while the effect on health-related quality of life is very uncertain. Almost all trials included elderly polypharmacy patients, which limits the generalisability of the results beyond this population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Almost all trials included elderly patients taking a high number of medications, so we may not be able to generalise the results to other types of patients."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6384
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic pelvic pain is a common and debilitating condition; its aetiology is multifactorial, involving social, psychological and biological factors. The management of chronic pelvic pain is challenging, as despite interventions involving surgery, many women remain in pain without a firm gynaecological diagnosis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of non-surgical interventions for women with chronic pelvic pain.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register. We also searched (from inception to 5 February 2014) AMED, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS. We handsearched sources such as citation lists, trial registers and conference proceedings.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) on non-surgical management of chronic pelvic pain were eligible for inclusion. We included studies of women with a diagnosis of pelvic congestion syndrome or adhesions but excluded those with pain known to be caused by endometriosis, primary dysmenorrhoea (period pain), active chronic pelvic inflammatory disease or irritable bowel syndrome. We considered studies of any non-surgical intervention, including lifestyle, physical, medical and psychological treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nStudy selection, quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two review authors. Meta-analysis was performed using the Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome measure was pain relief, and secondary outcome measures were psychological outcomes, quality of life, requirement for analgesia and adverse effects. The quality of the evidence was assessed by using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nTwenty-one RCTs were identified that involved non-surgical management of chronic pelvic pain: 13 trials were included in the review, and eight were excluded. The studies included a total of 750 women—406 women in the intervention groups and 344 in the control groups. Included studies had high attrition rates, and investigators often did not blind adequately or did not clearly describe randomisation procedures.\nMedical treatment versus placebo\nProgestogen (medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)) was more effective than placebo at the end of treatment in terms of the number of women achieving a greater than 50% reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score immediately after treatment (Peto OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.70 to 5.31, two studies, n = 204, I2 = 22%, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence of benefit was maintained up to nine months after treatment (Peto OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.71, two studies, n = 204, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Women treated with progestogen reported more adverse effects (e.g. weight gain, bloatedness) than those given placebo (high-quality evidence). The estimated effect of lofexidine on pain outcomes when compared with placebo was compatible with benefit and harm (Peto OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.61, one study, 39 women, low-quality evidence). Women in the lofexidine group reported more adverse effects (including drowsiness and dry mouth) than women given placebo (moderate-quality evidence).\nHead-to-head comparisons of medical treatments\nHead-to-head comparisons showed that women taking goserelin had greater improvement in pelvic pain score (MD 3, 95% CI 2.08 to 3.92, one study, n = 47, moderate-quality evidence) at one year than those taking progestogen. Women taking gabapentin had a lower VAS pain score than those taking amytriptyline (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.06 to -0.94, n = 40, low-quality evidence). Study authors reported that no statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of adverse effects among women taking gabapentin compared with women given amytriptyline. The study comparing goserelin versus progestogen did not report on adverse effects.\nPsychological treatment\nWomen who underwent reassurance ultrasound scans and received counselling were more likely to report improved pain than those treated with a standard 'wait and see' policy (Peto OR 6.77, 95% CI 2.83 to 16.19, n = 90, low-quality evidence). Significantly more women who had writing therapy as a disclosure reported improvement in pain than those in the non-disclosure group (Peto OR 4.47, 95% CI 1.41 to 14.13, n = 48, very low-quality evidence). No difference between groups in pain outcomes was noted when other psychological therapies were compared with standard care or placebo (quality of evidence ranged from very low to low). Studies did not report on adverse effects.\nComplementary therapy\nDistension of painful pelvic structures was more effective for pain when compared with counselling (MD 35.8, 95% CI 23.08 to 48.52 on a zero to 100 scale, one study, n = 48, moderate-quality evidence). No difference in pain levels was observed when magnetic therapy was compared with use of a control magnet (very low-quality evidence). Studies did not report on adverse effects.\nThe results of studies examining psychological and complementary therapies could not be combined to yield meaningful results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence of moderate quality supports progestogen as an option for chronic pelvic pain, with efficacy reported during treatment. In practice, this option may be most acceptable among women unconcerned about progestogenic adverse effects (e.g. weight gain, bloatedness—the most common adverse effects). Although some evidence suggests possible benefit of goserelin when compared with progestogen, gabapentin as compared with amytriptyline, ultrasound versus 'wait and see' and writing therapy versus non-disclosure, the quality of evidence is generally low, and evidence is drawn from single studies.\nGiven the prevalence and healthcare costs associated with chronic pelvic pain in women, RCTs of other medical, lifestyle and psychological interventions are urgently required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Chronic pelvic pain in women is a common problem. Specific causes are often difficult to identify, even after investigation with ultrasound and inspection of the pelvis with key hole surgery. Treatment is frequently limited to relief of symptoms obtained with a concoction of medicines. Cochrane review authors examined the evidence about non-surgical interventions for the management of chronic pelvic pain."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6385
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn primary care, general practitioners (GPs) unavoidably reach a clinical judgement about a patient as part of their encounter with patients, and so clinical judgement can be an important part of the diagnostic evaluation. Typically clinical decision making about what to do next for a patient incorporates clinical judgement about the diagnosis with severity of symptoms and patient factors, such as their ideas and expectations for treatment. When evaluating patients for dementia, many GPs report using their own judgement to evaluate cognition, using information that is immediately available at the point of care, to decide whether someone has or does not have dementia, rather than more formal tests.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of GPs’ clinical judgement for diagnosing cognitive impairment and dementia in symptomatic people presenting to primary care. To investigate the heterogeneity of test accuracy in the included studies.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), and LILACs (BIREME) on 16 September 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected cross-sectional and cohort studies from primary care where clinical judgement was determined by a GP either prospectively (after consulting with a patient who has presented to a specific encounter with the doctor) or retrospectively (based on knowledge of the patient and review of the medical notes, but not relating to a specific encounter with the patient). The target conditions were dementia and cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment and dementia) and we included studies with any appropriate reference standard such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), International Classification of Diseases (ICD), aetiological definitions, or expert clinical diagnosis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened titles and abstracts for relevant articles and extracted data separately with differences resolved by consensus discussion. We used QUADAS-2 to evaluate the risk of bias and concerns about applicability in each study using anchoring statements. We performed meta-analysis using the bivariate method.\nMain results\nWe identified 18,202 potentially relevant articles, of which 12,427 remained after de-duplication. We assessed 57 full-text articles and extracted data on 11 studies (17 papers), of which 10 studies had quantitative data. We included eight studies in the meta-analysis for the target condition dementia and four studies for the target condition cognitive impairment. Most studies were at low risk of bias as assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool, except for the flow and timing domain where four studies were at high risk of bias, and the reference standard domain where two studies were at high risk of bias. Most studies had low concern about applicability to the review question in all QUADAS-2 domains.\nAverage age ranged from 73 years to 83 years (weighted average 77 years). The percentage of female participants in studies ranged from 47% to 100%. The percentage of people with a final diagnosis of dementia was between 2% and 56% across studies (a weighted average of 21%). For the target condition dementia, in individual studies sensitivity ranged from 34% to 91% and specificity ranged from 58% to 99%. In the meta-analysis for dementia as the target condition, in eight studies in which a total of 826 of 2790 participants had dementia, the summary diagnostic accuracy of clinical judgement of general practitioners was sensitivity 58% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43% to 72%), specificity 89% (95% CI 79% to 95%), positive likelihood ratio 5.3 (95% CI 2.4 to 8.2), and negative likelihood ratio 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.61).\nFor the target condition cognitive impairment, in individual studies sensitivity ranged from 58% to 97% and specificity ranged from 40% to 88%. The summary diagnostic accuracy of clinical judgement of general practitioners in four studies in which a total of 594 of 1497 participants had cognitive impairment was sensitivity 84% (95% CI 60% to 95%), specificity 73% (95% CI 50% to 88%), positive likelihood ratio 3.1 (95% CI 1.4 to 4.7), and negative likelihood ratio 0.23 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.40).\nIt was impossible to draw firm conclusions in the analysis of heterogeneity because there were small numbers of studies. For specificity we found the data were compatible with studies that used ICD-10, or applied retrospective judgement, had higher reported specificity compared to studies with DSM definitions or using prospective judgement. In contrast for sensitivity, we found studies that used a prospective index test may have had higher sensitivity than studies that used a retrospective index test.\nAuthors' conclusions\nClinical judgement of GPs is more specific than sensitive for the diagnosis of dementia. It would be necessary to use additional tests to confirm the diagnosis for either target condition, or to confirm the absence of the target conditions, but clinical judgement may inform the choice of further testing. Many people who a GP judges as having dementia will have the condition. People with false negative diagnoses are likely to have less severe disease and some could be identified by using more formal testing in people who GPs judge as not having dementia. Some false positives may require similar practical support to those with dementia, but some - such as some people with depression - may suffer delayed intervention for an alternative treatable pathology.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The results of the review indicate that in theory, if GPs used their clinical judgement in practice for dementia, they would correctly identify 58% of the people who have dementia as having the condition (sensitivity) and 89% of the people who do not have dementia as being free of the condition (specificity).\nThe results of the review indicate that in theory, if GPs used their clinical judgement in practice for cognitive impairment, they would correctly identify 84% of the people who have cognitive impairment as having the condition (sensitivity) and 73% of the people who do not have cognitive impairment as being free of the condition (specificity)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6386
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMedications with anticholinergic properties are commonly prescribed to older adults with a pre-existing diagnosis of dementia or cognitive impairment. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of all the medications a person takes is referred to as the anticholinergic burden because of its potential to cause adverse effects. It is possible that a high anticholinergic burden may be a risk factor for further cognitive decline or neuropsychiatric disturbances in people with dementia. Neuropsychiatric disturbances are the most frequent complication of dementia that require hospitalisation, accounting for almost half of admissions; hence, identification of modifiable prognostic factors for these outcomes is crucial. There are various scales available to measure anticholinergic burden but agreement between them is often poor.\nObjectives\nOur primary objective was to assess whether anticholinergic burden, as defined at the level of each individual scale, was a prognostic factor for further cognitive decline or neuropsychiatric disturbances in older adults with pre-existing diagnoses of dementia or cognitive impairment. Our secondary objective was to investigate whether anticholinergic burden was a prognostic factor for other adverse clinical outcomes, including mortality, impaired physical function, and institutionalisation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched these databases from inception to 29 November 2021: MEDLINE OvidSP, Embase OvidSP, PsycINFO OvidSP, CINAHL EBSCOhost, and ISI Web of Science Core Collection on ISI Web of Science.\nSelection criteria\nWe included prospective and retrospective longitudinal cohort and case-control observational studies, with a minimum of one-month follow-up, which examined the association between an anticholinergic burden measurement scale and the above stated adverse clinical outcomes, in older adults with pre-existing diagnoses of dementia or cognitive impairment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and undertook data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE assessment. We summarised risk associations between anticholinergic burden and all clinical outcomes in a narrative fashion. We also evaluated the risk association between anticholinergic burden and mortality using a random-effects meta-analysis. We established adjusted pooled rates for the anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale; then, as an exploratory analysis, established pooled rates on the prespecified association across scales.\nMain results\nWe identified 18 studies that met our inclusion criteria (102,684 older adults). Anticholinergic burden was measured using five distinct measurement scales: 12 studies used the ACB scale; 3 studies used the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS); 1 study used the Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS); 1 study used the Anticholinergic Effect on Cognition (AEC) Scale; and 2 studies used a list developed by Tune and Egeli.\nRisk associations between anticholinergic burden and adverse clinical outcomes were highly heterogenous. Four out of 10 (40%) studies reported a significantly increased risk of greater long-term cognitive decline for participants with an anticholinergic burden compared to participants with no or minimal anticholinergic burden. No studies investigated neuropsychiatric disturbance outcomes. One out of four studies (25%) reported a significant association with reduced physical function for participants with an anticholinergic burden versus participants with no or minimal anticholinergic burden. No study (out of one investigating study) reported a significant association between anticholinergic burden and risk of institutionalisation. Six out of 10 studies (60%) found a significantly increased risk of mortality for those with an anticholinergic burden compared to those with no or minimal anticholinergic burden. Pooled analysis of adjusted mortality hazard ratios (HR) measured anticholinergic burden with the ACB scale, and suggested a significantly increased risk of death for those with a high ACB score relative to those with no or minimal ACB scores (HR 1.153, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.030 to 1.292; 4 studies, 48,663 participants). An exploratory pooled analysis of adjusted mortality HRs across anticholinergic burden scales also suggested a significantly increased risk of death for those with a high anticholinergic burden (HR 1.102, 95% CI 1.044 to 1.163; 6 studies, 68,381 participants).\nOverall GRADE evaluation of results found low- or very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low-certainty evidence that older adults with dementia or cognitive impairment who have a significant anticholinergic burden may be at increased risk of death. No firm conclusions can be drawn for risk of accelerated cognitive decline, neuropsychiatric disturbances, decline in physical function, or institutionalisation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for studies that looked at the link between anticholinergic medicines and a range of clinical outcomes in people with dementia. We compared and summarised the results of identified studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors, such as study methods and sizes."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6387
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe balance of benefits and harms associated with enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia is not clear. An increasing number of guidelines highlight the lack of evidenced benefit and potential risks of enteral tube feeding. In some areas of the world, the use of enteral tube feeding is decreasing, and in other areas it is increasing.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia who develop problems with eating and swallowing or who have reduced food and fluid intake.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registers on 14 April 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or controlled non-randomised studies. Our population of interest was adults of any age with a diagnosis of primary degenerative dementia of any cause, with severe cognitive and functional impairment, and poor nutritional intake. Eligible studies evaluated the effectiveness and complications of enteral tube feeding via a nasogastric or gastrostomy tube, or via jejunal post-pyloric feeding, in comparison with standard care or enhanced standard care, such as an intervention to promote oral intake. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors screened citations and two review authors assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies against inclusion criteria. One review author extracted data, which were then checked independently by a second review author. We used the 'Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions' (ROBINS-I) tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Risk of confounding was assessed against a pre-agreed list of key potential confounding variables. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers. Results were not suitable for meta-analysis, so we presented them narratively. We presented results separately for studies of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding, nasogastric tube feeding and studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall certainty of the evidence related to each outcome for each study.\nMain results\nWe found no eligible RCTs. We included fourteen controlled, non-randomised studies. All the included studies compared outcomes between groups of people who had been assigned to enteral tube feeding or oral feeding by prior decision of a healthcare professional. Some studies controlled for a range of confounding factors, but there were high or very high risks of bias due to confounding in all studies, and high or critical risks of selection bias in some studies.\nFour studies with 36,816 participants assessed the effect of PEG feeding on survival time. None found any evidence of effects on survival time (low-certainty evidence).\nThree of four studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods in 310 participants (227 enteral tube feeding, 83 no enteral tube feeding) found them to be associated with longer survival time. The fourth study (1386 participants: 135 enteral tube feeding, 1251 no enteral tube feeding) found no evidence of an effect. The certainty of this body of evidence is very low.\nOne study of PEG feeding (4421 participants: 1585 PEG, 2836 no enteral tube feeding) found PEG feeding increased the risk of pressure ulcers (moderate-certainty evidence). Two of three studies reported an increase in the number of pressure ulcers in those receiving mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding (234 participants: 88 enteral tube feeding, 146 no enteral tube feeding). The third study found no effect (very-low certainty evidence).\nTwo studies of nasogastric tube feeding did not report data on survival time or pressure ulcers.\nNone of the included studies assessed quality of life.\nOnly one study, using mixed methods of enteral tube feeding, reported on pain and comfort, finding no difference between groups. In the same study, a higher proportion of carers reported very heavy burden in the enteral tube feeding group compared to no enteral tube feeding.\nTwo studies assessed the effect of nasogastric tube feeding on mortality (236 participants: 144 nasogastric group, 92 no enteral tube feeding). One study of 67 participants (14 nasogastric, 53 no enteral tube feeding) found nasogastric feeding was associated with increased mortality risk. The second study found no difference in mortality between groups. The certainty of this evidence is very low. Results on mortality for those using PEG or mixed methods of enteral tube feeding were mixed and the certainty of evidence was very low. There was some evidence from two studies for enteral tube feeding improving nutritional parameters, but this was very low-certainty evidence. Five studies reported a variety of harm-related outcomes with inconsistent results. The balance of evidence suggested increased risk of pneumonia with enteral tube feeding.\nNone of the included studies assessed behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence that tube feeding improves survival; improves quality of life; reduces pain; reduces mortality; decreases behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia; leads to better nourishment; improves family or carer outcomes such as depression, anxiety, carer burden, or satisfaction with care; and no indication of harm. We found some evidence that there is a clinically significant risk of pressure ulcers from enteral tube feeding. Future research should focus on better reporting and matching of control and intervention groups, and clearly defined interventions, measuring all the outcomes referred to here.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included 14 studies that included 49,714 participants. Of these, 6203 were tube-fed and 43,511 were not. Participants with no feeding tube were given standard care or standard care with extra treatments to encourage eating and drinking."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6388
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nExercise training as a component of pulmonary rehabilitation improves health-related quality of life (HRQL) and exercise capacity in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, some individuals may have difficulty performing exercise at an adequate intensity. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) during exercise improves exercise capacity and dyspnoea during a single exercise session. Consequently, NIV during exercise training may allow individuals to exercise at a higher intensity, which could lead to greater improvement in exercise capacity, HRQL and physical activity.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether NIV during exercise training (as part of pulmonary rehabilitation) affects exercise capacity, HRQL and physical activity in people with COPD compared with exercise training alone or exercise training with sham NIV.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases between January 1987 and November 2013 inclusive: The Cochrane Airways Group specialised register of trials, AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials that compared NIV during exercise training versus exercise training alone or exercise training with sham NIV in people with COPD were considered for inclusion in this review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion in the review, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were exercise capacity, HRQL and physical activity; secondary outcomes were training intensity, physiological changes related to exercise training, dyspnoea, dropouts, adverse events and cost.\nMain results\nSix studies involving 126 participants who completed the study protocols were included. Most studies recruited participants with severe to very severe COPD (mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ranged from 26% to 48% predicted). There was an increase in percentage change peak and endurance exercise capacity with NIV during training (mean difference in peak exercise capacity 17%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7% to 27%, 60 participants, low-quality evidence; mean difference in endurance exercise capacity 59%, 95% CI 4% to 114%, 48 participants, low-quality evidence). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference between interventions for all other measures of exercise capacity. The results for HRQL assessed using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire do not rule out an effect of NIV (total score mean 2.5 points, 95% CI -2.3 to 7.2, 48 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Physical activity was not assessed in any study. There was an increase in training intensity with NIV during training of 13% (95% CI 1% to 27%, 67 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and isoload lactate was lower with NIV (mean difference -0.97 mmol/L, 95% CI -1.58mmol/L to -0.36 mmol/L, 37 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The effect of NIV on dyspnoea or the number of dropouts between interventions was uncertain, although again results were imprecise. No adverse events and no information regarding cost were reported. Only one study blinded participants, whereas three studies used blinded assessors. Adequate allocation concealment was reported in four studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe small number of included studies with small numbers of participants, as well as the high risk of bias within some of the included studies, limited our ability to draw strong evidence-based conclusions. Although NIV during lower limb exercise training may allow people with COPD to exercise at a higher training intensity and to achieve a greater physiological training effect compared with exercise training alone or exercise training with sham NIV, the effect on exercise capacity is unclear. Some evidence suggests that NIV during exercise training improves the percentage change in peak and endurance exercise capacity; however, these findings are not consistent across other measures of exercise capacity. There is no clear evidence that HRQL is better or worse with NIV during training. It is currently unknown whether the demonstrated benefits of NIV during exercise training are clinically worthwhile or cost-effective.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We conducted a review to determine whether NIV during exercise training affects exercise tolerance, quality of life and physical activity compared with exercise training alone or exercise training with sham NIV (placebo) in people with COPD."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6389
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCarpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a compression neuropathy of the median nerve causing pain and numbness and tingling typically in the thumb, index and middle finger. It sometimes results in muscle wasting, diminished sensitivity and loss of dexterity. Splinting the wrist (with or without the hand) using an orthosis is usually offered to people with mild-to-moderate findings, but its effectiveness remains unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of splinting for people with CTS.\nSearch methods\nOn 12 December 2021, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP with no limitations. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials were included if the effect of splinting could be isolated from other treatment modalities. The comparisons included splinting versus no active treatment (or placebo), splinting versus another disease-modifying non-surgical treatment, and comparisons of different splint-wearing regimens. We excluded studies comparing splinting with surgery or one splint design with another. We excluded participants if they had previously undergone surgical release.\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed study risk of bias and the certainty in the body of evidence for primary outcomes using the GRADE approach, according to standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nWe included 29 trials randomising 1937 adults with CTS. The trials ranged from 21 to 234 participants, with mean ages between 42 and 60 years. The mean duration of CTS symptoms was seven weeks to five years. Eight studies with 523 hands compared splinting with no active intervention (no treatment, sham-kinesiology tape or sham-laser); 20 studies compared splinting (or splinting delivered along with another non-surgical intervention) with another non-surgical intervention; and three studies compared different splinting regimens (e.g. night-time only versus full time).\nTrials were generally at high risk of bias for one or more domains, including lack of blinding (all included studies) and lack of information about randomisation or allocation concealment in 23 studies.\nFor the primary comparison, splinting compared to no active treatment, splinting may provide little or no benefits in symptoms in the short term (< 3 months). The mean Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) (scale 1 to 5, higher is worse; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) 1 point) was 0.37 points better with splint (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 better to 0.08 worse; 6 studies, 306 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared with no active treatment. Removing studies with high or unclear risk of bias due to lack of randomisation or allocation concealment supported our conclusion of no important effect (mean difference (MD) 0.01 points worse with splint; 95% CI 0.20 better to 0.22 worse; 3 studies, 124 participants). In the long term (> 3 months), we are uncertain about the effect of splinting on symptoms (mean BCTQ SSS 0.64 better with splinting; 95% CI 1.2 better to 0.08 better; 2 studies, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nSplinting probably does not improve hand function in the short term and may not improve hand function in the long term. In the short term, the mean BCTQ Functional Status Scale (FSS) (1 to 5, higher is worse; MCID 0.7 points) was 0.24 points better (95% CI 0.44 better to 0.03 better; 6 studies, 306 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) with splinting compared with no active treatment. In the long term, the mean BCTQ FSS was 0.25 points better (95% CI 0.68 better to 0.18 worse; 1 study, 34 participants; low-certainty evidence) with splinting compared with no active treatment.\nNight-time splinting may result in a higher rate of overall improvement in the short term (risk ratio (RR) 3.86, 95% CI 2.29 to 6.51; 1 study, 80 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 2, 95% CI 2 to 2; low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain if splinting decreases referral to surgery, RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.58; 3 studies, 243 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nNone of the trials reported health-related quality of life.\nLow-certainty evidence from one study suggests that splinting may have a higher rate of adverse events, which were transient, but the 95% CIs included no effect. Seven of 40 participants (18%) reported adverse effects in the splinting group and 0 of 40 participants (0%) in the no active treatment group (RR 15.0, 95% CI 0.89 to 254.13; 1 study, 80 participants).\nThere was low- to moderate-certainty evidence for the other comparisons: splinting may not provide additional benefits in symptoms or hand function when given together with corticosteroid injection (moderate-certainty evidence) or with rehabilitation (low-certainty evidence); nor when compared with corticosteroid (injection or oral; low certainty), exercises (low certainty), kinesiology taping (low certainty), rigid taping (low certainty), platelet-rich plasma (moderate certainty), or extracorporeal shock wave treatment (moderate certainty). Splinting for 12 weeks may not be better than six weeks, but six months of splinting may be better than six weeks of splinting in improving symptoms and function (low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to conclude whether splinting benefits people with CTS. Limited evidence does not exclude small improvements in CTS symptoms and hand function, but they may not be clinically important, and the clinical relevance of small differences with splinting is unclear. Low-certainty evidence suggests that people may have a greater chance of experiencing overall improvement with night-time splints than no treatment. As splinting is a relatively inexpensive intervention with no plausible long-term harms, small effects could justify its use, particularly when patients are not interested in having surgery or injections.\nIt is unclear if a splint is optimally worn full time or at night-time only and whether long-term use is better than short-term use, but low-certainty evidence suggests that the benefits may manifest in the long term.\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": "When worn for fewer than three months, splinting may not improve CTS symptoms and probably does not improve hand function compared with no intervention. However, people who used a night-time splint tended to report that overall they felt improvement compared with those that did not use a splint.\nIn the longer term (more than 3 months), we are still uncertain of the benefits of splinting due to few studies and inconsistent findings across similar studies. We cannot say for certain if splinting provides meaningful improvements in symptoms or function.\nWe are also uncertain if splinting reduces the need for surgery because only three studies reported this outcome. Splinting may cause temporary side effects such as difficulty in falling asleep or transient tingling after removal of the splint; none of the trials reported any serious side effects. None of the studies reported whether splints improved quality of life.\nSome studies assessed if splinting improves outcomes when delivered alongside other treatments. The results suggested that splinting may make little or no difference to outcomes when given together with corticosteroid injection or with various types of rehabilitation.\nSplinting was compared with other types of treatments. Splinting does not appear to improve outcomes compared with corticosteroid (injection or oral), exercises, kinesiology taping (stretchy tape), rigid taping, and probably does not improve outcomes compared with platelet-rich plasma (concentrate of plasma and platelet derived from blood) or extracorporeal shock wave treatment (pulses of high energy sound).\nSome studies compared different splint-wearing regimens. One study found that six months of splinting may improve symptoms and function compared with six weeks of splinting. Another study found that full-time splinting may not improve outcomes compared to night-time splinting."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6390
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIgA vasculitis (IgAV), previously known as Henoch-Schönlein purpura, is the most common vasculitis of childhood but may also occur in adults. This small vessel vasculitis is characterised by palpable purpura, abdominal pain, arthritis or arthralgia and kidney involvement. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and updated in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of different agents (used singularly or in combination) compared with placebo, no treatment or any other agent for (1) the prevention of severe kidney disease in people with IgAV with or without kidney involvement at onset, (2) the treatment of established severe kidney disease (macroscopic haematuria, proteinuria, nephritic syndrome, nephrotic syndrome with or without acute kidney failure) in IgAV, and (3) the prevention of recurrent episodes of IgAV-associated kidney disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 2 February 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions used to prevent or treat kidney disease in IgAV compared with placebo, no treatment or other agents were included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from each study. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model, and the results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.\nMain results\nTwenty studies (1963 enrolled participants) were identified; one three-arm study has been assessed as two studies. Nine studies were at low risk of bias for sequence generation (selection bias), and nine studies were at low risk of bias for allocation concealment (selection bias). Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) and outcome assessment (detection bias) was at low risk of bias in four and seven studies, respectively. Nine studies reported complete outcome data (attrition bias), while 10 studies reported expected outcomes, so were at low risk of reporting bias. Five studies were at low risk of other bias.\nEleven studies evaluated therapy to prevent persistent kidney disease in IgAV with or without kidney involvement at presentation. There was probably no difference in the risk of persistent kidney disease any time after treatment (5 studies, 746 children: RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.32) or at one, three, six and 12 months in children given prednisone for 14 to 28 days at presentation of IgAV compared with placebo or supportive treatment (moderate certainty evidence). There may be no differences in the risk of any persistent kidney disease with antiplatelet therapy (three studies) or heparin (two studies) in children with or without any kidney disease at study entry, although heparin may reduce the risk of proteinuria by three months compared with placebo or no specific treatment (2 studies, 317 children: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.73). One study comparing montelukast with placebo found no differences in outcomes as assessed by severity scale scores.\nNine studies examined the treatment of severe IgAV-associated kidney disease. In two studies (one involving 56 children and the other involving 54 adults), there may be no differences in efficacy outcomes or adverse effects with cyclophosphamide compared with placebo or supportive treatment. In two studies, there may be no differences in the numbers achieving remission of proteinuria with intravenous (IV) cyclophosphamide compared with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (65 children evaluated) or tacrolimus (142 children evaluated). In three small studies comparing cyclosporin with methylprednisolone (15 children), MMF with azathioprine (26 children), or MMF with leflunomide (19 children), it is unclear whether the treatment had any effect on the numbers in remission or the degree of proteinuria between treatment groups because of small numbers of included participants. In one study comparing plasmapheresis, cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone with cyclophosphamide and methylprednisolone, there may be no difference in the numbers achieving remission. One study compared fosinopril with no specific therapy and reported fosinopril reduced the number of participants with proteinuria. No studies were identified that evaluated the efficacy of therapy on kidney disease in participants with recurrent episodes of IgAV.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are no substantial changes in conclusions from this update compared with the initial review or the previous update despite the addition of five studies. From generally low to moderate certainty evidence, we found that there may be little or no benefit in the use of corticosteroids or antiplatelet agents to prevent persistent kidney disease in children with IgAV in participants with no or minimal kidney involvement at presentation. We did not find any studies which evaluated corticosteroids in children presenting with IgAV and nephritic and/or nephrotic syndrome, although corticosteroids are recommended in such children in guidelines. Though heparin may be effective in reducing proteinuria, this potentially dangerous therapy is not justified to prevent serious kidney disease when few children with IgAV develop severe kidney disease. There may be no benefit of cyclophosphamide compared with no specific treatment or corticosteroids. While there may be no benefit in the efficacy of MMF or tacrolimus compared with IV cyclophosphamide in children or adults with IgAV and severe kidney disease, adverse effects, particularly infections, may be lower in MMF or tacrolimus-treated children. Because of small patient numbers and events leading to imprecision in results, it remains unclear whether cyclosporin, MMF or leflunomide have any role in the treatment of children with IgAV and severe kidney disease. We did not identify any studies which evaluated corticosteroids\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 wanted to see whether the tested treatments prevented or treated persistent kidney disease at six to 12 months after the onset of IgAV. We found no definite benefits of prednisone or other treatments in preventing more serious kidney involvement in children with none or mild kidney involvement at study entry. We did not find any studies which evaluated prednisone in children presenting with IgAV and severe kidney involvement, although it is recommended for such children in treatment guidelines. In children with severe kidney involvement, we found no benefit of any medication that suppresses the immune system or of plasma exchange in treating kidney involvement in IgAV. As in other kidney diseases, we found that the ACE inhibitor, fosinopril, reduced the number of children with protein in the urine."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6391
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic exposure to stress has been linked to several negative physiological and psychological health outcomes. Among employees, stress and its associated effects can also result in productivity losses and higher healthcare costs. In-person (face-to-face) and computer-based (web- and mobile-based) stress management interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing stress in employees compared to no intervention. However, it is unclear if one form of intervention delivery is more effective than the other. It is conceivable that computer-based interventions are more accessible, convenient, and cost-effective.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of computer-based interventions versus in-person interventions for preventing and reducing stress in workers.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, NIOSHTIC, NIOSHTIC-2, HSELINE, CISDOC, and two trials registers up to February 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled studies that compared the effectiveness of a computer-based stress management intervention (using any technique) with a face-to-face intervention that had the same content. We included studies that measured stress or burnout as an outcome, and used workers from any occupation as participants.\nData collection and analysis\nThree authors independently screened and selected 75 unique studies for full-text review from 3431 unique reports identified from the search. We excluded 73 studies based on full-text assessment. We included two studies. Two review authors independently extracted stress outcome data from the two included studies. We contacted study authors to gather additional data. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to report study results. We did not perform meta-analyses due to variability in the primary outcome and considerable statistical heterogeneity. We used the GRADE approach to rate the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nTwo studies met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 159 participants in the included arms of the studies (67 participants completed computer-based interventions; 92 participants completed in-person interventions). Workers were primarily white, Caucasian, middle-aged, and college-educated. Both studies delivered education about stress, its causes, and strategies to reduce stress (e.g. relaxation or mindfulness) via a computer in the computer-based arm, and via small group sessions in the in-person arm. Both studies measured stress using different scales at short-term follow-up only (less than one month). Due to considerable heterogeneity in the results, we could not pool the data, and we analysed the results of the studies separately. The SMD of stress levels in the computer-based intervention group was 0.81 standard deviations higher (95% CI 0.21 to 1.41) than the in-person group in one study, and 0.35 standard deviations lower (95% CI -0.76 to 0.05) than the in-person group in another study. We judged both studies as having a high risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found very low-quality evidence with conflicting results, when comparing the effectiveness of computer-based stress management interventions with in-person stress management interventions in employees. We could include only two studies with small sample sizes. We have very little confidence in the effect estimates. It is very likely that future studies will change these conclusions.\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": "The effects of the delivery method on stress reduction were unclear. More research should be conducted to directly compare equivalent stress management programmes delivered via a computer and in-person. Any future studies will likely affect the conclusions of this review."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6392
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRotavirus is a common cause of diarrhoea, diarrhoea-related hospital admissions, and diarrhoea-related deaths worldwide. Rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the World Health Organization (WHO) include Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline), RotaTeq (Merck), and, more recently, Rotasiil (Serum Institute of India Ltd.), and Rotavac (Bharat Biotech Ltd.).\nObjectives\nTo evaluate rotavirus vaccines prequalified by the WHO for their efficacy and safety in children.\nSearch methods\nOn 30 November 2020, we searched PubMed, the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library), Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. We also searched the WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial reports from manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies, and relevant systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in children that compared rotavirus vaccines prequalified for use by the WHO with either placebo or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trial eligibility and assessed risk of bias. One author extracted data and a second author cross-checked them. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We stratified the analyses by under-five country mortality rate and used GRADE to evaluate evidence certainty.\nMain results\nSixty trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 228,233 participants. Thirty-six trials (119,114 participants) assessed Rotarix, 15 trials RotaTeq (88,934 participants), five trials Rotasiil (11,753 participants), and four trials Rotavac (8432 participants).\nRotarix\nInfants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life\nIn low-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 93% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (14,976 participants, 4 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 52% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (3874 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence).\nIn medium-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 79% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (31,671 participants, 4 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 36% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (26,479 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).\nIn high-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 58% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (15,882 participants, 4 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 27% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (5639 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).\nChildren vaccinated and followed up for two years\nIn low-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 90% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (18,145 participants, 6 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 51% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (6269 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence).\nIn medium-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 77% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (28,834 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 26% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (23,317 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence).\nIn high-mortality countries, Rotarix prevented 35% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (13,768 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence), and 17% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (2764 participants, 1 trial; high-certainty evidence).\nRotaTeq\nInfants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life\nIn low-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 97% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (5442 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).\nIn medium-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 79% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (3863 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence).\nIn high-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6775 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), but there is probably little or no difference between vaccine and placebo for severe all-cause diarrhoea (1 trial, 4085 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nChildren vaccinated and followed up for two years\nIn low-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 96% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (5442 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).\nIn medium-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 79% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (3863 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence).\nIn high-mortality countries, RotaTeq prevented 44% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6744 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (5977 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).\nWe did not identify RotaTeq studies reporting on severe all-cause diarrhoea in low- or medium-mortality countries.\nRotasiil\nRotasiil has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low or medium child mortality.\nInfants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life\nIn high-mortality countries, Rotasiil prevented 48% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and resulted in little to no difference in severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).\nChildren vaccinated and followed up for two years\nIn high-mortality countries, Rotasiil prevented 44% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence), and resulted in little to no difference in severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (11,008 participants, 2 trials; high-certainty evidence).\nRotavac\nRotavac has not been assessed in any RCT in countries with low or medium child mortality.\nInfants vaccinated and followed up for the first year of life\nIn high-mortality countries, Rotavac prevented 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence), and 16% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (6799 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence).\nChildren vaccinated and followed up for two years\nIn high-mortality countries, Rotavac prevented 54% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (6541 participants, 1 trial; moderate-certainty evidence); no Rotavac studies have reported on severe all-cause diarrhoea at two-years follow-up.\nSafety\nNo increased risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) was detected with Rotarix (103,714 participants, 31 trials; high-certainty evidence), RotaTeq (82,502 participants, 14 trials; moderate to high-certainty evidence), Rotasiil (11,646 participants, 3 trials; high-certainty evidence), or Rotavac (8210 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence).\nDeaths were infrequent and the analysis had insufficient evidence to show an effect on all-cause mortality. Intussusception was rare.\nAuthors' conclusions\nRotarix, RotaTeq, Rotasiil, and Rotavac prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. The relative effect estimate is smaller in high-mortality than in low-mortality countries, but more episodes are prevented in high-mortality settings as the baseline risk is higher. In high-mortality countries some results suggest lower efficacy in the second year. We found no increased risk of serious adverse events, including intussusception, from any of the prequalified rotavirus vaccines.\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": "Rotarix, RotaTeq, Rotasiil, and Rotavac prevent the large majority of episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea during the first year of a child's life, when diarrhoea is most dangerous, with a slightly lower efficacy during the second year. We found no increased risk of serious adverse events (moderate- to high-certainty evidence) including intussusception (where the bowel telescopes on itself, and can cause obstruction)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6393
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFear of dental pain is a major barrier to treatment for children who need dental care. The use of preoperative analgesics has the potential to reduce postoperative discomfort and intraoperative pain. We reviewed the available evidence to determine whether further research is warranted and to inform the development of prescribing guidelines. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of preoperative analgesics for intraoperative or postoperative pain relief (or both) in children and adolescents undergoing dental treatment without general anaesthesia or sedation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 5 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 5 January 2016), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 January 2016), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 5 January 2016) and the ISI Web of Science (1945 to 5 January 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 5 January 2016. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We handsearched several specialist journals dating from 2000 to 2011.\nWe checked the reference lists of all eligible trials for additional studies. We contacted specialists in the field for any unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled clinical trials of analgesics given before dental treatment versus placebo or no analgesics in children and adolescents up to 17 years of age. We excluded children and adolescents having dental treatment under sedation (including nitrous oxide/oxygen) or general anaesthesia.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed titles and abstracts of the articles obtained from the searches for eligibility, undertook data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nWe included five trials in the review, with 190 participants in total. We did not identify any new studies for inclusion from the updated search in January 2016.\nThree trials were related to dental treatment, i.e. restorative and extraction treatments; two trials related to orthodontic treatment. We did not judge any of the included trials to be at low risk of bias.\nThree of the included trials compared paracetamol with placebo, only two of which provided data for analysis (presence or absence of parent-reported postoperative pain behaviour). Meta-analysis of the two trials gave arisk ratio (RR) for postoperative pain of 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.22; two trials, 100 participants; P = 0.31), which showed no evidence of a benefit in taking paracetamol preoperatively (52% reporting pain in the placebo group versus 42% in the paracetamol group). One of these trials was at unclear risk of bias, and the other was at high risk. The quality of the evidence is low. One study did not have any adverse events; the other two trials did not mention adverse events.\nFour of the included trials compared ibuprofen with placebo. Three of these trials provided useable data. One trial reported no statistical difference in postoperative pain experienced by the ibuprofen group and the control group for children undergoing dental treatment. We pooled the data from the other two trials, which included participants who were having orthodontic separator replacement without a general anaesthetic, to determine the effect of preoperative ibuprofen on the severity of postoperative pain. There was a statistically significant mean difference in severity of postoperative pain of -13.44 (95% CI -23.01 to -3.88; two trials, 85 participants; P = 0.006) on a visual analogue scale (0 to 100), which indicated a probable benefit for preoperative ibuprofen before this orthodontic procedure. However, both trials were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence is low. Only one of the trials reported adverse events (one participant from the ibuprofen group and one from the placebo group reporting a lip or cheek biting injury).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFrom the available evidence, we cannot determine whether or not preoperative analgesics are of benefit in paediatric dentistry for procedures under local anaesthetic. There is probably a benefit in using preoperative analgesics prior to orthodontic separator placement. The quality of the evidence is low. Further randomised clinical trials should be completed with appropriate sample sizes and well defined outcome measures.\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": "From the available evidence, we could not determine whether or not painkillers before treatment are of benefit for children and adolescents having dental procedures under local anaesthetic. There is probably a benefit in giving painkillers before braces are fitted. Only one study reported an adverse event (one participant in each group had a lip or cheek biting injury). More research is needed."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6394
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSchizophrenia is a psychiatric disorder which involves distortions in thought and perception, blunted affect, and behavioural disturbances. The longer psychosis goes unnoticed and untreated, the more severe the repercussions for relapse and recovery. There is some evidence that early intervention services can help, and diagnostic techniques that could contribute to early intervention may offer clinical utility in these situations. The index test being evaluated in this review is the structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) analysis technique known as voxel-based morphometry (VBM) that estimates the distribution of grey matter tissue volume across several brain regions. This review is an exploratory examination of the diagnostic ‘potential’ of VBM for use as an additional tool in the clinical examination of patients with first episode psychosis to establish whether an individual will progress on to developing schizophrenia as opposed to other types of psychosis.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether VBM applied to the brain can be used to differentiate schizophrenia from other types of psychosis in participants who have received a clinical diagnosis of first episode psychosis.\nSearch methods\nIn December 2013, we updated a previous search (May 2012) of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycInfo using OvidSP.\nSelection criteria\nWe included retrospective and prospective studies that consecutively or randomly selected adolescent and adult participants (< 45 years) with a first episode of psychosis; and that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of VBM for differentiating schizophrenia from other psychoses compared with a clinical diagnosis made by a qualified mental health professional, with or without the use of standard operational criteria or symptom checklists. We excluded studies in children, and in adult participants with organic brain disorders or who were at high risk for schizophrenia, such as people with a genetic predisposition.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened all references for inclusion. We assessed the quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 instrument. Due to a lack of data, we were not able to extract 2 x 2 data tables for each study nor undertake any meta-analysis.\nMain results\nWe included four studies with a total of 275 participants with first episode psychosis. VBM was not used to diagnose schizophrenia in any of the studies, instead VBM was used to quantify the magnitude of differences in grey matter volume. Therefore, none of the included studies reported data that could be used in the analysis, and we summarised the findings narratively for each study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence to currently support diagnosing schizophrenia (as opposed to other psychotic disorders) using the pattern of brain changes seen in VBM studies in patients with first episode psychosis. VBM has the potential to discriminate between diagnostic categories but the methods to do this reliably are currently in evolution. In addition, the lack of applicability of the use of VBM to clinical practice in the studies to date limits the usefulness of VBM as a diagnostic aid to differentiate schizophrenia from other types of psychotic presentations in people with first episode of psychosis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to December 2013. We found four studies that used VBM in 275 adolescents and adults with first episode psychosis. One study recruited participants from a hospital, one from an outpatient clinic and one from inpatient and outpatient psychiatric services, and the fourth study did not report setting. Participants' mean age ranged from 18.6 to 27.1 years. Only two studies reported on participants' gender and included both males and females."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6395
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCrohn's disease (CD) is a chronic relapsing inflammatory condition and maintenance of remission is a major issue as many patients fail to achieve remission with medical management and require surgical interventions. Purine analogues such as azathioprine (AZA) and 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) have been used to maintain surgically-induced remission in CD, but the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of these agents remains controversial.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of purine analogues (AZA and 6-MP) for maintenance of surgically-induced remission in CD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register from inception to 26 July 2018 (and from inception to 31 July 2019). In addition, we searched reference lists of all included studies and relevant reviews, conference proceedings and trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of at least three months that enrolled adults and children with surgically-induced remission of CD and compared AZA or 6-MP to no treatment, placebo or any other active intervention were considered for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The primary outcome was clinical relapse. Secondary outcomes included endoscopic relapse, radiologic and surgical relapse, adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), withdrawal due to AEs and health-related quality of life.\nMain results\nTen RCTs with a total of 928 participants were included. Study participants were adults recruited from university clinics and gastroenterology hospitals who received interventions post-surgery for a duration between 12 to 36 months. Most study participants were recruited less than three months after surgery in all except one study where participants were recruited between 6 to 24 months post-surgery. One study was rated as low risk of bias, six studies were rated high risk of bias and three were rated unclear risk of bias.\nThere was moderate certainty evidence that purine analogues are more efficient for preventing clinical relapse than placebo. At 12 to 36 months, 51% (109/215) of AZA/6-MP participants relapsed compared to 64% (124/193) of placebo participants (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.92; 408 participants; 3 studies; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence regarding the efficacy of AZA or 6-MP for maintaining postoperative clinical remission compared to 5-ASA compounds was low. At 12 to 24 months , 64% (113/177) of purine analogue participants relapsed compared to 59% (101/170) of 5-ASA participants (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.24; 347 participants; 4 studies; I² = 8%; low certainty evidence). The certainty of evidence that purine analogues are inferior for preventing postsurgical clinical relapse compared to tumour necrosis factor alpha agents (anti-TNF-α) was very low. At 12 to 24 months, 43% (29/67) of AZA participants relapsed compared to 14% (10/72) of anti-TNF-α participants (RR 2.89; 95% CI 1.50 to 5.57; 139 participants; 3 studies; I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence).\nThe effect of purine analogues compounds on AEs compared to placebo or any active treatment was uncertain, as the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. After 12 to 24 months, 14% (12/87) of purine analogue participants experienced an AE compared to 10% (8/81) of placebo participants (RR 1.36; 95% CI 0.57 to 3.27; 168 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). The effect of purine analogues on AEs compared to 5-ASA agents was uncertain. After 12 to 24 months, 41% (73/176) of purine analogue participants had an AE compared to 47% (81/171) of 5-ASA participants (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.07; 346 participants; 4 studies; I² = 15%; low certainty evidence). The effect of purine analogues on AEs in comparison to anti TNF-α agents was uncertain. At 12 to 24 months, 57% (32/56) of AZA participants had an AE compared to 51% (31/61) of anti-TNF-α participants (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.53; 117 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Purine analogue participants were more like than 5-ASA participants to have a SAE (RR 3.39, 95% CI 1.26 to 9.13, 311 participants; 3 studies; I² = 9%; very low certainty evidence), or to withdraw due to an AE (RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.28 to 3.81; 425 participants; 5 studies; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Commonly reported AEs across all studies included leucopenia, arthralgia, abdominal pain or severe epigastric intolerance, elevated liver enzymes, nausea and vomiting, pancreatitis, anaemia, nasopharyngitis and flatulence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate certainty evidence suggests that AZA and 6-MP may be superior to placebo for maintenance of surgically-induced remission in participants with CD. There was no clear difference in the number of clinical relapses when purine analogues were compared with 5-ASA agents, however this is based on low certainty evidence. There was very low certainty evidence that AZA and 6-MP are more likely to result in more serious adverse events (SAEs) and withdrawals due to an AE (low certainty) when compared to 5-ASA agents. Very low certainty evidence suggests that purine analogues may be inferior to anti-TNF-α agents, however, no firm conclusions can be drawn. Further research investigating the efficacy and safety of AZA and 6-MP in comparison to other active medications in surgically-induced remission of CD is warranted.\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 review was to understand the benefits and harms of purine analogues (azathioprine (AZA) and 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP)) used for maintaining remission following surgery in people with Crohn's disease (CD)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6396
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.\nObjectives\n• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia\n• To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety\n• To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nA review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.\nMain results\nWe included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%).\nIn this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies).\nAlmost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome.\nAltogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias.\nVomiting within 24 hours postoperatively\nRelative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28).\nRecommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available).\nFrequency of SAEs\nTwenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant.\nFrequency of any AE\nSixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant.\nClass-specific side effects\nFor class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant.\nDirection and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects.\nRecommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron.\nThe results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What we found\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 585 studies in 97,516 people who were given antiemetic medicines before or during general anaesthesia. People included in the studies were more likely to be sick after anaesthesia, as 83% were women and 88% were taking opioid painkillers. Most studies were conducted in Asia, Europe, or North America.\nThese studies either measured how many people were sick in the first 24 hours after their operation or how many unwanted effects were reported, or both of these outcomes. Most studies compared medicines (given alone or in combination) with a dummy (placebo) treatment.\nWe compared all antiemetic medicines with each other using a mathematical method called network meta-analysis."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6397
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople who are prescribed self administered medications typically take only about half their prescribed doses. Efforts to assist patients with adherence to medications might improve the benefits of prescribed medications.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective of this review is to assess the effects of interventions intended to enhance patient adherence to prescribed medications for medical conditions, on both medication adherence and clinical outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe updated searches of The Cochrane Library, including CENTRAL (via http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cochranelibrary/search/), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO (all via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), and Sociological Abstracts (via ProQuest) on 11 January 2013 with no language restriction. We also reviewed bibliographies in articles on patient adherence, and contacted authors of relevant original and review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included unconfounded RCTs of interventions to improve adherence with prescribed medications, measuring both medication adherence and clinical outcome, with at least 80% follow-up of each group studied and, for long-term treatments, at least six months follow-up for studies with positive findings at earlier time points.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted all data and a third author resolved disagreements. The studies differed widely according to medical condition, patient population, intervention, measures of adherence, and clinical outcomes. Pooling results according to one of these characteristics still leaves highly heterogeneous groups, and we could not justify meta-analysis. Instead, we conducted a qualitative analysis with a focus on the RCTs with the lowest risk of bias for study design and the primary clinical outcome.\nMain results\nThe present update included 109 new RCTs published since the previous update in January 2007, bringing the total number of RCTs to 182; we found five RCTs from the previous update to be ineligible and excluded them. Studies were heterogeneous for patients, medical problems, treatment regimens, adherence interventions, and adherence and clinical outcome measurements, and most had high risk of bias. The main changes in comparison with the previous update include that we now: 1) report a lack of convincing evidence also specifically among the studies with the lowest risk of bias; 2) do not try to classify studies according to intervention type any more, due to the large heterogeneity; 3) make our database available for collaboration on sub-analyses, in acknowledgement of the need to make collective advancement in this difficult field of research. Of all 182 RCTs, 17 had the lowest risk of bias for study design features and their primary clinical outcome, 11 from the present update and six from the previous update. The RCTs at lowest risk of bias generally involved complex interventions with multiple components, trying to overcome barriers to adherence by means of tailored ongoing support from allied health professionals such as pharmacists, who often delivered intense education, counseling (including motivational interviewing or cognitive behavioral therapy by professionals) or daily treatment support (or both), and sometimes additional support from family or peers. Only five of these RCTs reported improvements in both adherence and clinical outcomes, and no common intervention characteristics were apparent. Even the most effective interventions did not lead to large improvements in adherence or clinical outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAcross the body of evidence, effects were inconsistent from study to study, and only a minority of lowest risk of bias RCTs improved both adherence and clinical outcomes. Current methods of improving medication adherence for chronic health problems are mostly complex and not very effective, so that the full benefits of treatment cannot be realized. The research in this field needs advances, including improved design of feasible long-term interventions, objective adherence measures, and sufficient study power to detect improvements in patient-important clinical outcomes. By making our comprehensive database available for sharing we hope to contribute to achieving these advances.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Main results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The studies differed widely regarding included patients, treatments, adherence intervention types, medicine adherence measurement, and clinical outcomes. Therefore, we could not combine the results in statistical analysis to reach general conclusions, as it would be misleading to suggest that they are comparable. Instead, we provide the key features and findings of each study in tables, and we describe intervention effects in studies of the highest quality. The present update included 109 new studies, bringing the total number to 182. In the 17 studies of the highest quality, interventions were generally complex with several different ways to try to improve medicine adherence. These frequently included enhanced support from family, peers, or allied health professionals such as pharmacists, who often delivered education, counseling, or daily treatment support. Only five of these RCTs improved both medicine adherence and clinical outcomes, and no common characteristics for their success could be identified. Overall, even the most effective interventions did not lead to large improvements."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6398
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSurvivors of critical illness often experience a multitude of problems that begin in the intensive care unit (ICU) or present and continue after discharge. These can include muscle weakness, cognitive impairments, psychological difficulties, reduced physical function such as in activities of daily living (ADLs), and decreased quality of life. Early interventions such as mobilizations or active exercise, or both, may diminish the impact of the sequelae of critical illness.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of early intervention (mobilization or active exercise), commenced in the ICU, provided to critically ill adults either during or after the mechanical ventilation period, compared with delayed exercise or usual care, on improving physical function or performance, muscle strength and health-related quality of life.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. We searched conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles, databases of trial registries and contacted experts in the field on 31 August 2017. We did not impose restrictions on language or location of publications.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared early intervention (mobilization or active exercise, or both), delivered in the ICU, with delayed exercise or usual care delivered to critically ill adults either during or after the mechanical ventilation period in the ICU.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo researchers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full-text articles against the inclusion criteria of this review. We resolved any disagreement through discussion with a third review author as required. We presented data descriptively using mean differences or medians, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. A meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the included studies. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs (a total of 690 participants), in this review. Participants were adults who were mechanically ventilated in a general, medical or surgical ICU, with mean or median age in the studies ranging from 56 to 62 years. Admitting diagnoses in three of the four studies were indicative of critical illness, while participants in the fourth study had undergone cardiac surgery. Three studies included range-of-motion exercises, bed mobility activities, transfers and ambulation. The fourth study involved only upper limb exercises. Included studies were at high risk of performance bias, as they were not blinded to participants and personnel, and two of four did not blind outcome assessors. Three of four studies reported only on those participants who completed the study, with high rates of dropout. The description of intervention type, dose, intensity and frequency in the standard care control group was poor in two of four studies.\nThree studies (a total of 454 participants) reported at least one measure of physical function. One study (104 participants) reported low-quality evidence of beneficial effects in the intervention group on return to independent functional status at hospital discharge (59% versus 35%, risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 2.64); the absolute effect is that 246 more people (95% CI 38 to 567) per 1000 would attain independent functional status when provided with early mobilization. The effects on physical functioning are uncertain for a range measures: Barthel Index scores (early mobilization: median 75 control: versus 55, low quality evidence), number of ADLs achieved at ICU (median of 3 versus 0, low quality evidence) or at hospital discharge (median of 6 versus 4, low quality evidence). The effects of early mobilization on physical function measured at ICU discharge are uncertain, as measured by the Acute Care Index of Function (ACIF) (early mobilization mean: 61.1 versus control: 55, mean difference (MD) 6.10, 95% CI -11.85 to 24.05, low quality evidence) and the Physical Function ICU Test (PFIT) score (5.6 versus 5.4, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.98 to 1.38, low quality evidence). There is low quality evidence that early mobilization may have little or no effect on physical function measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery score at ICU discharge from one study of 184 participants (mean 1.6 in the intervention group versus 1.9 in usual care, MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.50), or at hospital discharge (MD 0, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.90). The fourth study, which examined postoperative cardiac surgery patients did not measure physical function as an outcome.\nAdverse effects were reported across the four studies but we could not combine the data. Our certainty in the risk of adverse events with either mobilization strategy is low due to the low rate of events. One study reported that in the intervention group one out of 49 participants (2%) experienced oxygen desaturation less than 80% and one of 49 (2%) had accidental dislodgement of the radial catheter. This study also found cessation of therapy due to participant instability occurred in 19 of 498 (4%) of the intervention sessions. In another study five of 101 (5%) participants in the intervention group and five of 109 (4.6%) participants in the control group had postoperative pulmonary complications deemed to be unrelated to intervention. A third study found one of 150 participants in the intervention group had an episode of asymptomatic bradycardia, but completed the exercise session. The fourth study reported no adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence on the effect of early mobilization of critically ill people in the ICU on physical function or performance, adverse events, muscle strength and health-related quality of life at this time. The four studies awaiting classification, and the three ongoing studies may alter the conclusions of the review once these results are available. We assessed that there is currently low-quality evidence for the effect of early mobilization of critically ill adults in the ICU due to small sample sizes, lack of blinding of participants and personnel, variation in the interventions and outcomes used to measure their effect and inadequate descriptions of the interventions delivered as usual care in the studies included in this Cochrane Review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found four studies that included a total of 690 adults who had been in the ICU. Patients were randomized to receive exercises and assistance to move early in their stay in the ICU or to usual care. All participants had been on a breathing machine at some point during their time in the ICU. Three studies included adults with critical illness involving severe disease of the lungs or severe body response to infection and one study involved adults who had undergone cardiac surgery."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6399
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAlthough research on non-surgical treatments for neck pain (NP) is progressing, there remains uncertainty about the efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for this population. Addressing cognitive and behavioural factors might reduce the clinical burden and the costs of NP in society.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of CBT among individuals with subacute and chronic NP. Specifically, the following comparisons were investigated: (1) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus placebo, no treatment, or waiting list controls; (2) cognitive-behavioural therapy versus other types of interventions; (3) cognitive-behavioural therapy in addition to another intervention (e.g. physiotherapy) versus the other intervention alone.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and PubMed, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to November 2014. Reference lists and citations of identified trials and relevant systematic reviews were screened.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that assessed the use of CBT in adults with subacute and chronic NP.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in each study and extracted the data. If sufficient homogeneity existed among studies in the pre-defined comparisons, a meta-analysis was performed. We determined the quality of the evidence for each comparison with the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 10 randomised trials (836 participants) in this review. Four trials (40%) had low risk of bias, the remaining 60% of trials had a high risk of bias.\nThe quality of the evidence for the effects of CBT on patients with chronic NP was from very low to moderate. There was low quality evidence that CBT was better than no treatment for improving pain (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.01 to -0.16), disability (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.01), and quality of life (SMD -0.93, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.31) at short-term follow-up, while there was from very low to low quality evidence of no effect on various psychological indicators at short-term follow-up. Both at short- and intermediate-term follow-up, CBT did not affect pain (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.21, low quality, at short-term follow-up; MD -0.89, 95% CI -2.73 to 0.94, low quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) or disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.20, moderate quality, at short-term follow-up; SMD -0.24, 95% CI-0.54 to 0.07, moderate quality, at intermediate-term follow-up) compared to other types of interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions for improving kinesiophobia at intermediate-term follow-up (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.08, I2 = 0%). Finally, there was very low quality evidence that CBT in addition to another intervention did not differ from the other intervention alone in terms of effect on pain (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.02) and disability (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.36) at short-term follow-up.\nFor patients with subacute NP, there was low quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.00), while no difference was found in terms of effect on disability (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.12) and kinesiophobia.\nNone of the included studies reported on adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWith regard to chronic neck pain, CBT was found to be statistically significantly more effective for short-term pain reduction only when compared to no treatment, but these effects could not be considered clinically meaningful. When comparing both CBT to other types of interventions and CBT in addition to another intervention to the other intervention alone, no differences were found. For patients with subacute NP, CBT was significantly better than other types of interventions at reducing pain at short-term follow-up, while no difference was found for disability and kinesiophobia. Further research is recommended to investigate the long-term benefits and risks of CBT including for the different subgroups of subjects with NP.\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": "With regard to chronic NP, CBT was statistically significantly better than no treatment at improving pain, disability, and quality of life, but these effects could not be considered clinically meaningful. No differences between CBT and other types of interventions (e.g. medication, education, physiotherapy, manual therapy, and exercises) were found in terms of pain and disability; there was moderate quality evidence that CBT was better than other interventions in improving fear of movement. Also, there was very low quality evidence that CBT added to another intervention was no better at improving pain and disability than the other intervention alone .\nFor subacute NP, there was low quality evidence that CBT was statistically significantly better than other types of interventions (e.g. manual therapy or education) for improving pain, but this effect was not clinically relevant. No difference was found in terms of disability and fear of movement.\nNone of the included studies reported on whether any adverse effects related to cognitive-behavioural therapy were observed."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6400
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDietary intake during early childhood can have implications on child health and developmental trajectories. Early childhood education and care (ECEC) services are recommended settings to deliver healthy eating interventions as they provide access to many children during this important period. Healthy eating interventions delivered in ECEC settings can include strategies targeting the curriculum (e.g. nutrition education), ethos and environment (e.g. menu modification) and partnerships (e.g. workshops for families). Despite guidelines supporting the delivery of healthy eating interventions in this setting, little is known about their impact on child health.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of healthy eating interventions delivered in ECEC settings for improving dietary intake in children aged six months to six years, relative to usual care, no intervention or an alternative, non-dietary intervention. Secondary objectives were to assess the impact of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions on physical outcomes (e.g. child body mass index (BMI), weight, waist circumference), language and cognitive outcomes, social/emotional and quality-of-life outcomes. We also report on cost and adverse consequences of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched eight electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Scopus and SportDiscus on 24 February 2022. We searched reference lists of included studies, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar, and contacted authors of relevant papers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, stepped-wedge RCTs, factorial RCTs, multiple baseline RCTs and randomised cross-over trials, of healthy eating interventions targeting children aged six months to six years that were conducted within the ECEC setting. ECEC settings included preschools, nurseries, kindergartens, long day care and family day care. To be included, studies had to include at least one intervention component targeting child diet within the ECEC setting and measure child dietary or physical outcomes, or both.\nData collection and analysis\nPairs of review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and extracted study data. We assessed risk of bias for all studies against 12 criteria within RoB 1, which allows for consideration of how selection, performance, attrition, publication and reporting biases impact outcomes. We resolved discrepancies via consensus or by consulting a third review author. Where we identified studies with suitable data and homogeneity, we performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model; otherwise, we described findings using vote-counting approaches and via harvest plots. For measures with similar metrics, we calculated mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for primary and secondary outcomes where studies used different measures. We applied GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for dietary, cost and adverse outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 52 studies that investigated 58 interventions (described across 96 articles). All studies were cluster-RCTs. Twenty-nine studies were large (≥ 400 participants) and 23 were small (< 400 participants). Of the 58 interventions, 43 targeted curriculum, 56 targeted ethos and environment, and 50 targeted partnerships. Thirty-eight interventions incorporated all three components. For the primary outcomes (dietary outcomes), we assessed 19 studies as overall high risk of bias, with performance and detection bias being most commonly judged as high risk of bias.\nECEC-based healthy eating interventions versus usual practice or no intervention may have a positive effect on child diet quality (SMD 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.65; P = 0.03, I2 = 91%; 6 studies, 1973 children) but the evidence is very uncertain. There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECEC-based healthy eating interventions likely increase children's consumption of fruit (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.18; P < 0.01, I2 = 0%; 11 studies, 2901 children). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions on children's consumption of vegetables (SMD 0.12, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.25; P =0.08, I2 = 70%; 13 studies, 3335 children). There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECEC-based healthy eating interventions likely result in little to no difference in children's consumption of non-core (i.e. less healthy/discretionary) foods (SMD −0.05, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.08; P = 0.48, I2 = 16%; 7 studies, 1369 children) or consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SMD −0.10, 95% CI −0.34 to 0.14; P = 0.41, I2 = 45%; 3 studies, 522 children).\nThirty-six studies measured BMI, BMI z-score, weight, overweight and obesity, or waist circumference, or a combination of some or all of these. ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may result in little to no difference in child BMI (MD −0.08, 95% CI −0.23 to 0.07; P = 0.30, I2 = 65%; 15 studies, 3932 children) or in child BMI z-score (MD −0.03, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.03; P = 0.36, I2 = 0%; 17 studies; 4766 children). ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may decrease child weight (MD −0.23, 95% CI −0.49 to 0.03; P = 0.09, I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 2071 children) and risk of overweight and obesity (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01; P = 0.07, I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1070 children).\nECEC-based healthy eating interventions may be cost-effective but the evidence is very uncertain (6 studies). ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may have little to no effect on adverse consequences but the evidence is very uncertain (3 studies).\nFew studies measured language and cognitive skills (n = 2), social/emotional outcomes (n = 2) and quality of life (n = 3).\nAuthors' conclusions\nECEC-based healthy eating interventions may improve child diet quality slightly, but the evidence is very uncertain, and likely increase child fruit consumption slightly. There is uncertainty about the effect of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions on vegetable consumption. ECEC-based healthy eating interventions may result in little to no difference in child consumption of non-core foods and sugar-sweetened beverages. Healthy eating interventions could have favourable effects on child weight and risk of overweight and obesity, although there was little to no difference in BMI and BMI z-scores. Future studies exploring the impact of specific intervention components, and describing cost-effectiveness and adverse outcomes are needed to better understand how to maximise the impact of ECEC-based healthy eating interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for studies that compared healthy eating programmes against no action, delayed delivery of the programme, or a programme that did not aim to change child diet.\nWe compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and sizes."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6401
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInfluenza is a highly infectious viral disease that is particularly common in the winter months. Oscillococcinum® is a patented homeopathic medicine that is made from a 1% solution of wild duck heart and liver extract, which is then serially diluted 200 times with water and alcohol.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether homeopathic Oscillococcinum® is more effective than placebo in the prevention and/or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness in adults or children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1966 to August week 4, 2014), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (4 September 2014), AMED (2006 to September 2014), Web of Science (1985 to September 2014), LILACS (1985 to September 2014) and EMBASE (1980 to September 2014). We contacted the manufacturers of Oscillococcinum® for information on further trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, placebo-controlled trials of Oscillococcinum® in the prevention and/or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness in adults or children.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the eligible trials.\nMain results\nNo new trials were included in this 2014 update. We included six studies: two prophylaxis trials (327 young to middle-aged adults in Russia) and four treatment trials (1196 teenagers and adults in France and Germany). The overall standard of trial reporting was poor and hence many important methodological aspects of the trials had unclear risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference between the effects of Oscillococcinum® and placebo in the prevention of influenza-like illness: risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.34, P value = 0.16. Two treatment trials (judged as 'low quality') reported sufficient information to allow full data extraction: 48 hours after commencing treatment, there was an absolute risk reduction of 7.7% in the frequency of symptom relief with Oscillococcinum® compared with that of placebo (risk difference (RD) 0.077, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.12); the RR was 1.86 (95% CI 1.27 to 2.73; P value = 0.001). A significant but lesser effect was observed at three days (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; P value = 0.03), and no significant difference between the groups was noted at four days (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; P value = 0.10) or at five days (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16; P value = 0.25). One of the six studies reported one patient who suffered an adverse effect (headache) from taking Oscillococcinum®.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum®.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "To determine whether homeopathic Oscillococcinum®is more effective than placebo in the prevention and/or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness in adults or children."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6402
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRelapse (the re-emergence of depressive symptoms after some level of improvement but preceding recovery) and recurrence (onset of a new depressive episode after recovery) are common in depression, lead to worse outcomes and quality of life for patients and exert a high economic cost on society. Outcomes can be predicted by using multivariable prognostic models, which use information about several predictors to produce an individualised risk estimate. The ability to accurately predict relapse or recurrence while patients are well (in remission) would allow the identification of high-risk individuals and may improve overall treatment outcomes for patients by enabling more efficient allocation of interventions to prevent relapse and recurrence.\nObjectives\nTo summarise the predictive performance of prognostic models developed to predict the risk of relapse, recurrence, sustained remission or recovery in adults with major depressive disorder who meet criteria for remission or recovery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library (current issue); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 onwards); Ovid Embase (1980 onwards); Ovid PsycINFO (1806 onwards); and Web of Science (1900 onwards) up to May 2020. We also searched sources of grey literature, screened the reference lists of included studies and performed a forward citation search. There were no restrictions applied to the searches by date, language or publication status .\nSelection criteria\nWe included development and external validation (testing model performance in data separate from the development data) studies of any multivariable prognostic models (including two or more predictors) to predict relapse, recurrence, sustained remission, or recovery in adults (aged 18 years and over) with remitted depression, in any clinical setting. We included all study designs and accepted all definitions of relapse, recurrence and other related outcomes. We did not specify a comparator prognostic model.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened references; extracted data (using a template based on the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS)); and assessed risks of bias of included studies (using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST)). We referred any disagreements to a third independent review author. Where we found sufficient (10 or more) external validation studies of an individual model, we planned to perform a meta-analysis of its predictive performance, specifically with respect to its calibration (how well the predicted probabilities match the observed proportions of individuals that experience the outcome) and discrimination (the ability of the model to differentiate between those with and without the outcome). Recommendations could not be qualified using the GRADE system, as guidance is not yet available for prognostic model reviews.\nMain results\nWe identified 11 eligible prognostic model studies (10 unique prognostic models). Seven were model development studies; three were model development and external validation studies; and one was an external validation-only study. Multiple estimates of performance measures were not available for any of the models and, meta-analysis was therefore not possible. Ten out of the 11 included studies were assessed as being at high overall risk of bias. Common weaknesses included insufficient sample size, inappropriate handling of missing data and lack of information about discrimination and calibration. One paper (Klein 2018) was at low overall risk of bias and presented a prognostic model including the following predictors: number of previous depressive episodes, residual depressive symptoms and severity of the last depressive episode. The external predictive performance of this model was poor (C-statistic 0.59; calibration slope 0.56; confidence intervals not reported). None of the identified studies examined the clinical utility (net benefit) of the developed model.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOf the 10 prognostic models identified (across 11 studies), only four underwent external validation. Most of the studies (n = 10) were assessed as being at high overall risk of bias, and the one study that was at low risk of bias presented a model with poor predictive performance. There is a need for improved prognostic research in this clinical area, with future studies conforming to current best practice recommendations for prognostic model development/validation and reporting findings in line with the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement.\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 11 studies. Ten of these developed different models and one study tested one of the models developed in a previous study. It was not possible to combine results for any particular tool.\nTen of the 11 studies were rated at high risk of bias. This means that we cannot be confident in the results that were presented, due to some issues with the way the studies were conducted. The most common issue was that there were not enough participants included in the studies. Other common problems involved the statistical approaches used by the researchers.\nOne study was at low overall risk of bias, which means that we can be more confident in trusting the results. However, this tool did not make accurate predictions about relapse or recurrence.\nWe found no studies that could be used in clinical practice; further work is needed to develop tools for predicting relapse or recurrence of depression."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6403
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe genital infection caused by Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) is a common sexually transmitted infection (STI) globally. The infection is mainly asymptomatic in women, thus it can produce infertility and chronic pelvic pain. In men infection is mainly symptomatic, but can evolve to prostatitis. Clinical practice guidelines for CT urogenital infections do not give any specific recommendation about which antibiotic use as first option\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment for CT genital infection in men and non-pregnant women.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections' (STI) Information Specialist developed the electronic searches in electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS), and trials registers. We searched studies published from inception to June 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of men, and sexually-active, non-pregnant women with CT infection (urethritis or uterine cervicitis or asymptomatic), diagnosed by cell culture for CT, nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) or antigen-based detection methods, who had been treated with any of the antibiotic regimens recommended by any of the updated to 2013 CT Guidelines.\nData collection and analysis\nFour review authors screened evidence according to selection criteria and independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Two authors developed the 'Summary of findings' tables. We used a fixed-effect meta-analysis model for combining data where it was reasonable to assume that studies were estimating the same underlying treatment effect. We estimated the pooled risk ratio in order to establish the effects of the comparisons. Our primary outcomes were microbiological failure and adverse events, and our secondary outcomes were clinical failure, antimicrobial resistance and reinfection.\nMain results\nWe selected 14 studies ( 2715 participants: 2147 (79.08%) men and 568 (20.92%) women). The studies were conducted mainly at STD clinics. Sample sizes ranged from 71 to 606 participants; follow-up was 29.7 days on average.\nFor the comparison: azithromycin single dose versus doxycycline once or twice daily for 7 days, in men treated for CT, the risk of microbiological failure was higher in the azithromycin group (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.41; participants = 821; studies = 9; moderate-quality evidence), but regarding clinical failure, the results showed that the effect is uncertain (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.43 to 2,05; I² = 55%; participants = 525; studies = 3; low-quality evidence). Regarding adverse events (AE) in men there could be little or no difference between the antibiotics (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; participants = 1424; studies = 6; low-quality evidence). About women treated for CT, the effect on microbiological failure was uncertain (RR = 1.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 6.16; participants = 338; studies = 5; very low-quality evidence). There were no studies assessing clinical failure or adverse events in women, however, we found that azithromycin probably has fewer adverse events in both genders (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.98; I² = 0%; participants = 2261; studies = 9; moderate-quality evidence).\nFor the second comparison: doxycycline compared to ofloxacin, for men treated for CT the effect on microbiological failure was uncertain (RR 8.53, 95% CI 0.43 to 167.38, I² not applicable; participants = 80; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence), as also it was on clinical failure (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.62; participants = 36; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). The effect of in women on clinical failure was uncertain (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.25; I² = 39%; participants = 127; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence).Regarding adverse events, the effect in both men and women was uncertain (RR 1.02 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; participants = 339 studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). The effect on microbiological failure in women and in men and women together was not estimable. The most frequently AE reported were not serious and of gastrointestinal origin.No studies assessed antimicrobial resistance or reinfection in either comparison.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn men, regimens with azithromycin are probably less effective than doxycycline for microbiological failure, however, there might be little or no difference for clinical failure. For women, we are uncertain whether azithromycin compared to doxycycline increases the risk of microbiological failure. Azithromycin probably slightly reduces adverse events compared to doxycycline in men and women together but may have little difference in men alone. We are uncertain whether doxycycline compared to ofloxacin reduces microbiological failure in men or women alone, or men and women together, nor if it reduces clinical failure or adverse events in men or women.\nBased on the fact that women suffer mainly asymptomatic infections, and in order to test the effectiveness and safety of the current recommendations (azithromycin, doxycycline and ofloxacin), for CT infection, especially in low and middle income countries, future RCTs should be designed and conducted to include a large enough sample size of women, and with low risk of bias. It is also important that future RCTs include adherence, CT resistance to antibiotic regimens, and risk of reinfection as outcomes to be measured. In addition, it is important to conduct a network meta-analysis in order to evaluate all those studies that included in one arm only the current antibiotic treatments for CT infection that are recommended by the updated clinical practice guidelines.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study funding sources\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "One study reported funding from academic grants, another four studies declared having received sponsorship or grants from pharmaceutical companies. The other studies declared that they were self-funded or did not mention funding at all."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6404
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInfants born preterm are at increased risk of developing cognitive and motor impairment compared with infants born at term. Early developmental interventions have been provided in the clinical setting with the aim of improving overall functional outcomes for these infants. Long-term benefits of these programmes remain unclear.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective \nTo compare the effectiveness of early developmental intervention programmes provided post hospital discharge to prevent motor or cognitive impairment in preterm (< 37 weeks) infants versus standard medical follow-up of preterm infants at infancy (zero to < three years), preschool age (three to < five years), school age (five to < 18 years) and adulthood (≥ 18 years).\nSecondary objectives\nTo perform subgroup analyses to determine the following.\n• Effects of gestational age, birth weight and brain injury (periventricular leukomalacia (PVL)/intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH)) on cognitive and motor outcomes when early intervention is compared with standard follow-up.\n∘ Gestational age: < 28 weeks, 28 to < 32 weeks, 32 to < 37 weeks.\n∘ Birth weight: < 1000 grams, 1000 to < 1500 grams, 1500 to < 2500 grams.\n∘ Brain injury: absence or presence of grade III or grade IV IVH or cystic PVL (or both) or an abnormal ultrasound/magnetic resonance image (MRI) before initiation of the intervention.\n• Effects of interventions started during inpatient stay with a post-discharge component versus standard follow-up care.\n• Effects of interventions focused on the parent-infant relationship, infant development or both compared with standard follow-up care.\nTo perform sensitivity analysis to identify the following.\n• Effects on motor and cognitive impairment when early developmental interventions are provided within high-quality randomised trials with low risk of bias for sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome measures and selective reporting bias.\nSearch methods\nThe search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used to identify randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of early developmental interventions provided post hospital discharge. Two review authors independently searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Advanced, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO and EMBASE (1966 to August 2015).\nSelection criteria\nStudies included had to be randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of early developmental intervention programmes that began within the first 12 months of life for infants born before 37 weeks' gestational age. Interventions could commence on an inpatient basis but had to include a post-discharge component for inclusion in this review. Outcome measures were not prespecified, other than that they had to assess cognitive outcomes, motor outcomes or both. Rates of cerebral palsy were documented.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo independent review authors extracted and entered data. Cognitive and motor outcomes were pooled by four age groups: infancy (zero to < three years), preschool age (three to < five years), school age (five to < 18 years) and adulthood (≥ 18 years). Meta-analysis using RevMan 5.1 was carried out to determine the effects of early developmental interventions at each age range. Subgroup analyses focused on gestational age, birth weight, brain injury, commencement of the intervention, focus of the intervention and study quality.\nMain results\nTwenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria (3615 randomly assigned participants). Only 12 of these studies were randomised controlled trials with appropriate allocation concealment. Variability was evident with regard to focus and intensity of the intervention, participant characteristics and length of follow-up. Meta-analysis led to the conclusion that intervention improved cognitive outcomes at infancy (developmental quotient (DQ): standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.32 standard deviations (SDs), 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.47; P value < 0.001; 16 studies; 2372 participants) and at preschool age (intelligence quotient (IQ); SMD 0.43 SDs, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54; P value < 0.001; eight studies; 1436 participants). However, this effect was not sustained at school age (IQ: SMD 0.18 SDs, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.43; P value = 0.17; five studies; 1372 participants). Heterogeneity between studies for cognitive outcomes at infancy and at school age was significant. With regards to motor outcomes, meta-analysis of 12 studies showed a significant effect in favour of early developmental interventions at infancy only; however, this effect was small (motor scale DQ: SMD 0.10 SDs, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.19; P value = 0.03; 12 studies; 1895 participants). No effect was noted on the rate of cerebral palsy among survivors (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.27; seven studies; 985 participants). Little evidence showed a positive effect on motor outcomes in the long term, but only five included studies reported outcomes at preschool age (n = 3) or at school age (n = 2).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEarly intervention programmes for preterm infants have a positive influence on cognitive and motor outcomes during infancy, with cognitive benefits persisting into preschool age. A great deal of heterogeneity between studies was due to the variety of early developmental intervention programmes tested and to gestational ages of included preterm infants; thus, comparisons of intervention programmes were limited. Further research is needed to determine which early developmental interventions are most effective in improving cognitive and motor outcomes, and to discern the longer-term effects of these programmes.\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": "Evidence suggests that early developmental interventions improve cognitive outcomes up to preschool age. Evidence also indicates that early developmental interventions improve motor outcomes during infancy; however, these effects are small. Little evidence was found of an effect on long-term cognitive or motor outcomes (up to school age). The early developmental intervention programmes described in this review had to begin within the first 12 months of life, had to focus on the parent-infant relationship and/or infant development and, although they could begin while the baby was still in hospital, had to include a component that was delivered post discharge from hospital. The early developmental intervention programmes included in this review vary by content and by frequency and focus of the intervention."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6405
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOral cancers are the sixth most common cancer worldwide, yet the prognosis following a diagnosis of oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancers remains poor, with approximately 50% survival at five years. Despite a sharp increase in research into molecularly targeted therapies and a rapid expansion in the number of clinical trials assessing new targeted therapies, their value for treating oral cancers is unclear. Therefore, it is important to summarise the evidence to determine the efficacy and toxicity of targeted therapies and immunotherapies for the treatment of these cancers.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of molecularly targeted therapies and immunotherapies, in addition to standard therapies, for the treatment of oral cavity or oropharyngeal cancers.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 3 February 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 1), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 3 February 2015) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 3 February 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov), the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the American Society of Clinical Oncology conference abstracts and the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group clinical trials protocols for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared targeted therapy or immunotherapy, plus standard therapy, with standard therapy alone.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We attempted to contact study authors for missing data or clarification where necessary. We combined sufficiently similar studies in meta-analyses using random-effects models when there were at least four studies and fixed-effect models when fewer than four studies. We obtained or calculated a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the primary outcomes where possible. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs.\nMain results\nTwelve trials (2488 participants) satisfied the inclusion criteria. In the included trials, 12% of participants (298 participants) had tumours of the oral cavity and 59% (1468 participants) had oropharyngeal tumours. The remaining 29% had tumours of the larynx or hypopharynx and less than 1% had tumours at other sites.\nNo included trial was at low risk of bias; seven had an unclear risk of bias, and five had a high risk of bias. We grouped trials by intervention type into three main comparisons: standard therapy plus epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody (EGFR mAb) therapy (follow-up period 24 to 70 months); standard therapy plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (follow-up period 40 to 60 months) and standard therapy plus immunotherapy (follow-up period 24 to 70 months), all versus standard therapy alone.\nModerate quality evidence showed that EGFR mAb therapy may result in 18% fewer deaths when added to standard therapy (HR of mortality 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 1421 participants, three studies, 67% oropharyngeal tumours, 2% oral cavity tumours).\nThere was also moderate quality evidence that EGFR mAb may result in 32% fewer locoregional failures when added to radiotherapy (RT) (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89; 424 participants, one study, 60% oropharyngeal tumours).\nA subgroup analysis separating studies by type of standard therapy (radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT)) showed some evidence that adding EGFR mAb therapy to RT may result in a 30% reduction in the number of people whose disease progresses (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91; 424 participants, one study, 60% oropharyngeal tumours, unclear risk of bias). For the subgroup comparing EGFR mAb plus CRT with CRT alone there was insufficient evidence to determine whether adding EGFR mAb therapy to CRT impacts on progression-free survival (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.32; 891 participants, one study, 70% oropharyngeal tumours, high risk of bias). The high subgroup heterogeneity meant that we were unable to pool these subgroups.\nThere was evidence that adding cetuximab to standard therapy may result in increased skin toxicity and rash (RR 6.56; 95% CI 5.35 to 8.03; 1311 participants, two studies), but insufficient evidence to determine any difference in skin toxicity and rash in the case of nimotuzumab (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; 92 participants, one study).\nThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether TKIs added to standard therapy impacts on overall survival (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.57; 271 participants, two studies; very low quality evidence), locoregional control (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.49; 271 participants, two studies; very low quality evidence), disease-free survival (HR 1.51; 95% CI 0.61 to 3.71; 60 participants, one study; very low quality evidence) or progression-free survival (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.28; 271 participants, two studies; very low quality evidence). We did find evidence of an increase in skin rash (erlotinib: RR 6.57; 95% CI 3.60 to 12.00; 191 participants, one study; lapatinib: RR 2.02; 95% CI 1.23 to 3.32; 67 participants, one study) and gastrointestinal complaints (lapatinib: RR 15.53; 95% CI 2.18 to 110.55; 67 participants, one study).\nWe found very low quality evidence from one small trial that adding recombinant interleukin (rIL-2) to surgery may increase overall survival (HR 0.52; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.87; 201 participants, 62% oral cavity tumours, 38% oropharyngeal tumours) and there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rIL-2 impacts on adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found some evidence that adding EGFR mAb to standard therapy may increase overall survival, progression-free survival and locoregional control, while resulting in an increase in skin toxicity for some mAb (cetuximab).\nThere is insufficient evidence to determine whether adding TKIs to standard therapies changes any of our primary outcomes.\nVery low quality evidence from a single study suggests that rIL-2 combined with surgery may increase overall survival compared with surgery alone.\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": ""
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6406
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCommunication about end of life (EoL) and EoL care is critically important for providing quality care as people approach death. Such communication is often complex and involves many people (patients, family members, carers, health professionals). How best to communicate with people in the period approaching death is not known, but is an important question for quality of care at EoL worldwide. This review fills a gap in the evidence on interpersonal communication (between people and health professionals) in the last year of life, focusing on interventions to improve interpersonal communication and patient, family member and carer outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions designed to improve verbal interpersonal communication about EoL care between health practitioners and people affected by EoL.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception to July 2018, without language or date restrictions. We contacted authors of included studies and experts and searched reference lists to identify relevant papers. We searched grey literature sources, conference proceedings, and clinical trials registries in September 2019. Database searches were re-run in June 2021 and potentially relevant studies listed as awaiting classification or ongoing.\nSelection criteria\nThis review assessed the effects of interventions, evaluated in randomised and quasi-randomised trials, intended to enhance interpersonal communication about EoL care between patients expected to die within 12 months, their family members and carers, and health practitioners involved in their care. Patients of any age from birth, in any setting or care context (e.g. acute catastrophic injury, chronic illness), and all health professionals involved in their care were eligible. All communication interventions were eligible, as long as they included interpersonal interaction(s) between patients and family members or carers and health professionals. Interventions could be simple or complex, with one or more communication aims (e.g. to inform, skill, engage, support). Effects were sought on outcomes for patients, family and carers, health professionals and health systems, including adverse (unintended) effects.\nTo ensure this review's focus was maintained on interpersonal communication in the last 12 months of life, we excluded studies that addressed specific decisions, shared or otherwise, and the tools involved in such decision-making. We also excluded studies focused on advance care planning (ACP) reporting ACP uptake or completion as the primary outcome. Finally, we excluded studies of communication skills training for health professionals unless patient outcomes were reported as primary outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nStandard Cochrane methods were used, including dual review author study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies.\nMain results\nEight trials were included. All assessed intervention effects compared with usual care. Certainty of the evidence was low or very low. All outcomes were downgraded for indirectness based on the review’s purpose, and many were downgraded for imprecision and/or inconsistency. Certainty was not commonly downgraded for methodological limitations.\nA summary of the review's findings is as follows.\nKnowledge and understanding (four studies, low-certainty evidence; one study without usable data): interventions to improve communication (e.g. question prompt list, with or without patient and physician training) may have little or no effect on knowledge of illness and prognosis, or information needs and preferences, although studies were small and measures used varied across trials.\nEvaluation of the communication (six studies measuring several constructs (communication quality, patient-centredness, involvement preferences, doctor-patient relationship, satisfaction with consultation), most low-certainty evidence): across constructs there may be minimal or no effects of interventions to improve EoL communication, and there is uncertainty about effects of interventions such as a patient-specific feedback sheet on quality of communication.\nDiscussions of EoL or EoL care (six studies measuring selected outcomes, low- or very low-certainty evidence): a family conference intervention may increase duration of EoL discussions in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting, while use of a structured serious illness conversation guide may lead to earlier discussions of EoL and EoL care (each assessed by one study). We are uncertain about effects on occurrence of discussions and question asking in consultations, and there may be little or no effect on content of communication in consultations.\nAdverse outcomes or unintended effects (limited evidence): there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there are adverse outcomes associated with communication interventions (e.g. question prompt list, family conference, structured discussions) for EoL and EoL care. Patient and/or carer anxiety was reported by three studies, but judged as confounded. No other unintended consequences, or worsening of desired outcomes, were reported.\nPatient/carer quality of life (four studies, low-certainty evidence; two without useable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on quality of life.\nHealth practitioner outcomes (three studies, low-certainty evidence; two without usable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on health practitioner outcomes (satisfaction with communication during consultation; one study); effects on other outcomes (knowledge, preparedness to communicate) are unknown.\nHealth systems impacts: communication interventions (e.g. structured EoL conversations) may have little or no effect on carer or clinician ratings of quality of EoL care (satisfaction with care, symptom management, comfort assessment, quality of care) (three studies, low-certainty evidence), or on patients' self-rated care and illness, or numbers of care goals met (one study, low-certainty evidence). Communication interventions (e.g. question prompt list alone or with nurse-led communication skills training) may slightly increase mean consultation length (two studies), but other health service impacts (e.g. hospital admissions) are unclear.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFindings of this review are inconclusive for practice. Future research might contribute meaningfully by seeking to fill gaps for populations not yet studied in trials; and to develop responsive outcome measures with which to better assess the effects of communication on the range of people involved in EoL communication episodes. Mixed methods and/or qualitative research may contribute usefully to better understand the complex interplay between different parties involved in communication, and to inform development of more effective interventions and appropriate outcome measures. Co-design of such interventions and outcomes, involving the full range of people affected by EoL communication and care, should be a key underpinning principle for future research in this area.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found eight studies that compared the effects of communication interventions for people at EoL with usual care. Interventions were varied and ranged from simple approaches like a list to help patients and carers ask questions in consultations, through to complex structured conversation interventions to engage patients and carers in discussions about EoL and the care they wished to receive.\nWe found that a family conference intervention may increase the length of EoL discussions in some situations, and a structured serious illness conversation guide might lead to earlier discussions between patients, carers and health professionals about EoL and EoL care.\nWe also found there may be little effect of communication interventions on knowledge, on what people thought about the communication (e.g. quality of communication, how involved in the discussion they would like to be) or on outcomes like numbers of questions asked by patients in consultations with their doctors. We did not find any evidence of harmful or negative effects of the interventions, but the studies were mostly small and not designed primarily to identify these.\nThere may also be little effect on the other outcomes we looked for, like quality of life, quality of EoL care, or numbers of care goals met. In other cases, we are unsure because there was little or no evidence available (e.g. health professional outcomes like knowledge or confidence to communicate, or health service use e.g. hospital admissions)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6407
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInadvertent perioperative hypothermia is a phenomenon that can occur as a result of the suppression of the central mechanisms of temperature regulation due to anaesthesia, and of prolonged exposure of large surfaces of skin to cold temperatures in operating rooms. Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia has been associated with clinical complications such as surgical site infection and wound-healing delay, increased bleeding or cardiovascular events. One of the most frequently used techniques to prevent inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is active body surface warming systems (ABSW), which generate heat mechanically (heating of air, water or gels) that is transferred to the patient via skin contact.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of pre- or intraoperative active body surface warming systems (ABSW), or both, to prevent perioperative complications from unintended hypothermia during surgery in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9, 2015); MEDLINE (PubMed) (1964 to October 2015), EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to October 2015), and CINAHL (Ovid) (1982 to October 2015).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an ABSW system aimed at maintaining normothermia perioperatively against a control or against any other ABSW system. Eligible studies also had to include relevant clinical outcomes other than measuring temperature alone.\nData collection and analysis\nSeveral authors, by pairs, screened references and determined eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and consensus, with the collaboration of a third author.\nMain results\nWe included 67 trials with 5438 participants that comprised 79 comparisons. Forty-five RCTs compared ABSW versus control, whereas 18 compared two different types of ABSW, and 10 compared two different techniques to administer the same type of ABSW. Forced-air warming (FAW) was by far the most studied intervention.\nTrials varied widely regarding whether the interventions were applied alone or in combination with other active (based on a different mechanism of heat transfer) and/or passive methods of maintaining normothermia. The type of participants and surgical interventions, as well as anaesthesia management, co-interventions and the timing of outcome measurement, also varied widely. The risk of bias of included studies was largely unclear due to limitations in the reports. Most studies were open-label, due to the nature of the intervention and the fact that temperature was usually the principal outcome. Nevertheless, given that outcome measurement could have been conducted in a blinded manner, we rated the risk of detection and performance bias as high.\nThe comparison of ABSW versus control showed a reduction in the rate of surgical site infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.66; 3 RCTs, 589 participants, low-quality evidence). Only one study at low risk of bias observed a beneficial effect with forced-air warming on major cardiovascular complications (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.00; 1 RCT with 12 events, 300 participants, low-quality evidence) in people at high cardiovascular risk. We found no beneficial effect for mortality. ABSW also reduced blood loss during surgery but the magnitude of this effect seems to be irrelevant (MD -46.17 mL, 95% CI -82.74 to -9.59; I² = 78%; 20 studies, 1372 participants). The same conclusion applies to total fluids infused during surgery (MD -144.49 mL, 95% CI -221.57 to -67.40; I² = 73%; 24 studies, 1491 participants). These effects did not translate into a significant reduction in the number of participants being transfused or the average amount of blood transfused. ABSW was associated with a reduction in shivering (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.54; 29 studies, 1922 participants) and in thermal comfort (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.76, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.24; I² = 77%, 4 trials, 364 participants).\nFor the comparison between different types of ABSW system or modes of administration of a particular type of ABSW, we found no evidence for the superiority of any system in terms of clinical outcomes, except for extending systemic warming to the preoperative period in participants undergoing major abdominal surgery (one study at low risk of bias).\nThere were limited data on adverse effects (the most relevant being thermal burns). While some trials included a narrative report mentioning that no adverse effects were observed, the majority made no reference to it. Nothing so far suggests that ABSW involves a significant risk to patients.\nAuthors' conclusions\nForced-air warming seems to have a beneficial effect in terms of a lower rate of surgical site infection and complications, at least in those undergoing abdominal surgery, compared to not applying any active warming system. It also has a beneficial effect on major cardiovascular complications in people with substantial cardiovascular disease, although the evidence is limited to one study. It also improves patient's comfort, although we found high heterogeneity among trials. While the effect on blood loss is statistically significant, this difference does not translate to a significant reduction in transfusions. Again, we noted high heterogeneity among trials for this outcome. The clinical relevance of blood loss reduction is therefore questionable. The evidence for other types of ABSW is scant, although there is some evidence of a beneficial effect in the same direction on chills/shivering with electric or resistive-based heating systems. Some evidence suggests that extending systemic warming to the preoperative period could be more beneficial than limiting it only to during surgery. Nothing suggests that ABSW systems pose a significant risk to patients.\nThe difficulty in observing a clinically-relevant beneficial effect with ABSW in outcomes other than temperature may be explained by the fact that many studies applied concomitant procedures that are routinely in place as co-interventions to prevent hypothermia, whether passive or active warming systems based in other physiological mechanisms (e.g. irrigation fluid or gas warming), as well as a stricter control of temperature in the context of the study compared with usual practice. These may have had a beneficial effect on the participants in the control group, leading to an underestimation of the net benefit of ABSW.\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": "Active warming had some beneficial clinical effects on the patient. It reduced the risk of a major complication of heart and circulation in one trial in people with substantial disease of that system, but the evidence remains inconclusive. Active warming reduced the rate of infection and complications of surgical wounds.. This effect was shown in two quite large trials in people undergoing abdominal surgery; forced-air warming was applied exclusively before the operation in one study, while in the other it was applied during the operation. Patients receiving active warming systems had about one-third the risk of postsurgical chills or shivering compared to those receiving control treatment (29 trials, 1922 people). Thermal comfort was increased for the patient compared with the control intervention (10 trials involving 700 people). On the other hand, warming made little or no difference to the risk of death, blood loss or the need for a blood transfusion. We found no differences in the number of non-fatal heart attacks, in anxiety or in pain, compared with people in the control groups.\nThe trials in the review did not allow us to identify which warming system was better. However, there was an indication from one trial at low risk of bias that results were better when systemic warming was extended to the period before the operation in people undergoing major abdominal surgery. We could only get limited information from the study reports regarding adverse effects. In some cases the trials reported that there had been no adverse effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6408
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNeonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to opioid withdrawal may result in disruption of the mother–infant relationship, sleep–wake abnormalities, feeding difficulties, weight loss, seizures and neurodevelopmental problems.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of using a sedative versus control (placebo, usual treatment or non-pharmacological treatment) for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids and determine which type of sedative is most effective and safe for NAS due to withdrawal from opioids.\nSearch methods\nWe ran an updated search on 17 September 2020 in CENTRAL via CRS Web and MEDLINE via Ovid. We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included trials enrolling infants with NAS born to mothers with an opioid dependence with more than 80% follow-up and using randomised, quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised allocation to sedative or control.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and independently extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 10 trials (581 infants) with NAS secondary to maternal opioid use in pregnancy. There were multiple comparisons of different sedatives and regimens. There were limited data available for use in sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias.\nPhenobarbital versus supportive care: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with phenobarbital and supportive care versus supportive care alone (risk ratio (RR) 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 7.94; 62 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No infant had a clinical seizure. The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. There may be an increase in days' hospitalisation and treatment from use of phenobarbital (hospitalisation: mean difference (MD) 20.80, 95% CI 13.64 to 27.96; treatment: MD 17.90, 95% CI 11.98 to 23.82; both 62 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nPhenobarbital versus diazepam: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus diazepam (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.62; 139 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation and treatment (hospitalisation: MD 3.89, 95% CI –1.20 to 8.98; 32 participants; treatment: MD 4.30, 95% CI –0.73 to 9.33; 31 participants; both low-certainty evidence).\nPhenobarbital versus chlorpromazine: there may be a reduction in treatment failure with phenobarbital versus chlorpromazine (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.92; 138 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and no infant had a seizure. The studies did not report mortality and neurodevelopmental disability. One study reported there may be little or no difference in days' hospitalisation (MD 7.00, 95% CI –3.51 to 17.51; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 0/100 infants had an adverse event.\nPhenobarbital and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported no infants with treatment failure and no clinical seizures in either group (low-certainty evidence). The study did not report mortality, neurodevelopmental disability and adverse events. One study reported there may be a reduction in days' hospitalisation for infants treated with phenobarbital and opioid (MD –43.50, 95% CI –59.18 to –27.82; 20 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nClonidine and opioid versus opioid alone: one study reported there may be little or no difference in treatment failure with clonidine and dilute tincture of opium (DTO) versus DTO alone (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All five infants with treatment failure were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in seizures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.68; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All three infants with seizures were in the DTO group. There may be little or no difference in mortality after discharge (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 131.28; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All three deaths were in the clonidine and DTO group. The study did not report neurodevelopmental disability. There may be little or no difference in days' treatment (MD –4.00, 95% CI –8.33 to 0.33; 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One adverse event occurred in the clonidine and DTO group. There may be little or no difference in rebound NAS after stopping treatment, although all seven cases were in the clonidine and DTO group.\nClonidine and opioid versus phenobarbital and opioid: there may be little or no difference in treatment failure (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.25; 2 studies, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported one infant in the clonidine and morphine group had a seizure, and there were no infant mortalities. The studies did not report neurodevelopmental disability. There may be an increase in days' hospitalisation and days' treatment with clonidine and opioid versus phenobarbital and opioid(hospitalisation: MD 7.13, 95% CI 6.38 to 7.88; treatment: MD 7.57, 95% CI 3.97 to 11.17; both 2 studies, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 5.40; 2 studies, 93 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, there was oversedation only in the phenobarbital and morphine group; and hypotension, rebound hypertension and rebound NAS only in the clonidine and morphine group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital increases duration of hospitalisation and treatment, but reduces days to regain birthweight and duration of supportive care each day compared to supportive care alone. There is low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital reduces treatment failure compared to diazepam and very low-certainty evidence that phenobarbital reduces treatment failure compared to chlorpromazine. There is low-certainty evidence of an increase in days' hospitalisation and days' treatment with clonidine and opioid compared to phenobarbital and opioid. There are insufficient data to determine the safety and incidence of adverse events for infants treated with combinations of opioids and sedatives including phenobarbital and clonidine.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "To determine the effectiveness and safety of using a sedative (sleep-inducing medicine) compared to a non-opioid or a non-medicine control for the treatment of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) due to withdrawal from opioids."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6409
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), health services are under-utilised, and several studies have reported improvements in neonatal outcomes following health education imparted to mothers in homes, at health units, or in hospitals. However, evaluating health educational strategy to deliver newborn care, such as one-to-one counselling or group counselling via peer or support groups, or delivered by health professionals, requires rigorous assessment of methodological design and quality, as well as assessment of cost-effectiveness, affordability, sustainability, and reproducibility in diverse health systems.\nObjectives\nTo compare a community health educational strategy versus no strategy or the existing approach to health education on maternal and newborn care in LMICs, as imparted to mothers or their family members specifically in community settings during the antenatal and/or postnatal period, in terms of effectiveness for improving neonatal health and survival (i.e. neonatal mortality, neonatal morbidity, access to health care, and cost).\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4), in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 2 May 2017), Embase (1980 to 2 May 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 2 May 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nCommunity-based randomised controlled, cluster-randomised, or quasi-randomised controlled trials.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE method and prepared 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included in this review 33 original trials (reported in 62 separate articles), which were conducted across Africa and Central and South America, with most reported from Asia, specifically India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Of the 33 community educational interventions provided, 16 included family members in educational counselling, most frequently the mother-in-law or the expectant father. Most studies (n = 14) required one-to-one counselling between a healthcare worker and a mother, and 12 interventions involved group counselling for mothers and occasionally family members; the remaining seven incorporated components of both counselling methods.\nOur analyses show that community health educational interventions had a significant impact on reducing overall neonatal mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.96; random-effects model; 26 studies; n = 553,111; I² = 88%; very low-quality evidence), early neonatal mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.84; random-effects model; 15 studies that included 3 subsets from 3 studies; n = 321,588; I² = 86%; very low-quality evidence), late neonatal mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; random-effects model; 11 studies; n = 186,643; I² = 88%; very low-quality evidence), and perinatal mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.91; random-effects model; 15 studies; n = 262,613; I² = 81%; very low-quality evidence). Moreover, community health educational interventions increased utilisation of any antenatal care (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.22; random-effects model; 18 studies; n = 307,528; I² = 96%) and initiation of breastfeeding (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.77; random-effects model; 19 studies; n = 126,375; I² = 99%). In contrast, community health educational interventions were found to have a non-significant impact on use of modern contraceptives (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.41; random-effects model; 3 studies; n = 22,237; I² = 80%); presence of skilled birth attendance at birth (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.25; random-effects model; 10 studies; n = 117,870; I² = 97%); utilisation of clean delivery kits (RR 4.44, 95% CI 0.71 to 27.76; random-effects model; 2 studies; n = 17,087; I² = 98%); and care-seeking (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.27; random-effects model; 7 studies; n = 46,154; I² = 93%).\nCost-effectiveness analysis conducted in seven studies demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness for intervention packages ranged between USD 910 and USD 11,975 for newborn lives saved and newborn deaths averted. For averted disability-adjusted life-year, costs ranged from USD 79 to USD 146, depending on the intervention strategy; for cost per year of lost lives averted, the most effective strategy was peer counsellors, and the cost was USD 33.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review offers encouraging evidence on the value of integrating packages of interventions with educational components delivered by a range of community workers in group settings in LMICs, with groups consisting of mothers, and additional education for family members, for improved neonatal survival, especially early and late neonatal survival.\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": "Is community health educational intervention for newborn care effective in improving neonatal health and survival in low- and middle-income countries?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6410
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeritonitis is one of the limiting factors for the growth of peritoneal dialysis (PD) worldwide and is a major cause of technique failure. Several studies have examined the effectiveness of various catheter-related interventions for lowering the risk of PD-related peritonitis. This is an update of a review first published in 2004.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the role of different catheter implantation techniques and catheter types in lowering the risk of PD-related peritonitis in PD patients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 15 January 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nStudies comparing different catheter insertion techniques, catheter types, use of immobilisation techniques and different break-in periods were included. Studies of different PD sets were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random effects model and the results expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nForty-two studies (3144 participants) were included: 18 evaluated techniques of catheter implantation, 22 examined catheter types, one assessed an immobiliser device, and one examined break-in period. In general, study quality was variable and almost all aspects of study design did not fulfil CONSORT standards for reporting.\nCatheter insertion by laparoscopy compared with laparotomy probably makes little or no difference to the risks of peritonitis (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.35; moderate certainty evidence), exit-site/tunnel infection (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.31; low certainty evidence), catheter removal/replacement (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.86; low certainty evidence), technique failure (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.08; low certainty evidence), and death (all causes) (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.20; moderate certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether subcutaneous burying of catheter increases peritonitis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.60; very low certainty evidence). Midline insertion compared to lateral insertion probably makes little or no difference to the risks of peritonitis (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.33; moderate certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference to exit-site/tunnel infection (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.58; low certainty evidence). Percutaneous insertion compared with open surgery probably makes little or no difference to the exit-site/tunnel infection (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.30; moderate certainty evidence).\nStraight catheters probably make little or no difference to the risk of peritonitis (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.31; moderate certainty evidence), peritonitis rate (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21; moderate certainty evidence), risk of exit-site infection (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.34; moderate certainty evidence), and exit-site infection rate (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.43; moderate certainty evidence) compared to coiled catheter. It is uncertain whether straight catheters prevent catheter removal or replacement (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.66; very low certainty evidence) but straight catheters probably make little or no difference to technique failure (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.31; moderate certainty evidence) and death (all causes) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.46; low certainty evidence) compared to coiled catheter. Tenckhoff catheter with artificial curve at subcutaneous tract compared with swan-neck catheter may make little or no difference to peritonitis (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.96; low certainty evidence) and incidence of exit-site/tunnel infection (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21; low certainty evidence) but may slightly improve exit-site infection rate (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; low certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no strong evidence that any catheter-related intervention, including the use of different catheter types or different insertion techniques, reduces the risks of PD peritonitis or other PD-related infections, technique failure or death (all causes). However, the numbers and sizes of studies were generally small and the methodological quality of available studies was suboptimal, such that the possibility that a particular catheter-related intervention might have a beneficial effect cannot be completely ruled out with confidence.\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 review of the literature to examine the effects of different methods of catheter insertion and different types of catheter in prevention of peritonitis in PD patients."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6411
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting genetic condition affecting various organ systems including the gastrointestinal tract, endocrine system and especially the respiratory tract. Pulmonary exacerbations in CF result in increased symptoms, an acceleration in the rate of lung decline and an increased need for treatment. Early detection of infections or clinical worsening provides an opportunity for proactive treatment that may affect clinical outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate whether digital technology can effectively predict pulmonary exacerbations to allow earlier intervention and improved health outcomes without increasing the burden of treatment in people with CF.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews on 13 October 2022. We searched Embase and the clinical trial registries on 3 January 2023.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in people with CF looking at whether digital technology can effectively predict pulmonary exacerbations to allow earlier intervention and improved health outcomes without increasing the burden of treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. pulmonary exacerbations and 2. quality of life (QoL). Our secondary outcomes were 3. lung function, 4. hospitalisations, 5. intravenous (IV) antibiotics, 6. microbiology, 7. cost-effectiveness and 8. adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included three studies (415 participants) in people with CF aged 15 to 41 years over a 12-month period. One was a multicentre RCT, whilst two were single-centre RCTs.\nThe three studies were mostly similar in their risk of bias, having low or unclear risk of selection bias but a high risk of detection bias, due to the unblinded design of these studies. The studies used a variety of digital technologies to monitor symptoms such as a digital symptom diary either with or without home spirometry monitoring. As the trials only included adults and older children, we are not certain that the results would apply to younger children.\nOne of our primary outcomes was to assess time to detection of pulmonary exacerbation and number of pulmonary exacerbations identified between the intervention and routine care groups. We were largely unable to pool results in a meta-analysis due to the variety of methodologies and ways of reporting data. Two studies noted a shorter time to detection of exacerbations in the intervention group and one of these also reported that the intervention group had a shorter time to first exacerbation (hazard ratio for time to first exacerbation 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.93), whilst a further study reported a shorter time to detection of exacerbations in the intervention group requiring oral or IV antibiotics compared to the control group (median: 70 (interquartile range (IQR) 123) days with intervention versus 141 (IQR 140) days with control; P = 0.02). However, all three studies were concordant in finding no probable effect on spirometry in the intervention groups when compared with their routine care groups over a 12-month period.\nWe found that there is probably no difference between groups with regard to QoL scores across most domains except for Weight and Body Image, which favoured the usual care group. There is also probably no difference in the number of days of additional IV antibiotics needed or newly detected pathogens.\nNo studies reported serious adverse events directly linked to the intervention and one study reported their smartphone application was generally well received.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPulmonary exacerbations are universally accepted to be detrimental to progression of CF-related lung disease, therefore, it is intuitive that early detection and intervention would help to improve outcomes. Digital technology provides an opportunity to detect physiological and symptomatic changes to identify exacerbations early.\nOur review found that digital technologies based on recording physiological change (spirometry) and symptoms probably allow earlier identification of exacerbations as a group. However, this may not reduce the number of exacerbations warranting IV antibiotics and there is probably no effect on lung function. This may be partly due to inconsistent definitions of pulmonary exacerbations and discrepancy in the management strategies for pulmonary exacerbations. Overall, the intervention may make little or no difference to QoL scores.\nThe adherence to and uptake of digital technologies, especially those which include physiological measurements, are not well sustained and the costs of these need to be balanced against the clinical 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": "Can digital technology identify chest infections in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) earlier than with standard care and how does this affect clinical outcomes?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6412
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCouple therapy for depression has the twofold aim of modifying negative interaction patterns and increasing mutually supportive aspects of intimate relationships, changing the interpersonal context of depression. Couple therapy is included in several guidelines among the suggested treatments for depression.\nObjectives\n1. The main objective was to examine the effects of couple therapy compared to individual psychotherapy for depression.\n2. Secondary objectives were to examine the effects of couple therapy compared to drug therapy and no/minimal treatment for depression.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and PsycINFO (Ovid) were searched to 19 February 2018. Relevant journals and reference lists were checked.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials examining the effects of couple therapy versus individual psychotherapy, drug therapy, or no treatment/minimal treatment for depression were included in the review.\nData collection and analysis\nWe considered as primary outcomes the depressive symptom level, the depression persistence, and the dropouts; the relationship distress level was a secondary outcome. We extracted data using a standardised spreadsheet. Where data were not included in published papers, we tried to obtain the data from the authors. We synthesised data using Review Manager software version 5.3. We pooled dichotomous data using the relative risk (RR), and continuous data calculating the standardised mean difference (SMD), together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We employed the random-effects model for all comparisons and also calculated a formal test for heterogeneity, the natural approximate Chi2 test.\nMain results\nWe included fourteen studies from Europe, North America, and Israel, with 651 participants. Eighty per cent of participants were Caucasian. Therefore, the findings cannot be considered as applicable to non-Western countries or to other ethnic groups in Western countries. On average, participants had moderate depression, preventing the extension of results to severely depressed patients. Almost all participants were aged between 36 and 47 years.\nThere was no evidence of difference in effect at the end of treatment between couple therapy and individual psychotherapy, either for the continuous outcome of depressive symptoms, based on nine studies with 304 participants (SMD −0.17, 95% CI −0.44 to 0.10, low-quality evidence), or the proportion of participants remaining depressed, based on six studies with 237 participants (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.22, low-quality evidence). Findings from studies with 6-month or longer follow-up confirmed the lack of difference between the two conditions.\nNo trial gave information on harmful effects. However, we considered rates of treatment discontinuation for any reason as a proxy indicator of adverse outcomes. There was no evidence of difference for dropout rates between couple therapy and individual psychotherapy, based on eight studies with 316 participants (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.41, low-quality evidence).\nFew data were available for the comparison with drug therapy. Data from a small study with 12 participants showed no difference for the continuous outcome of depressive symptoms at end of treatment (SMD −0.51, 95% CI −1.69 to 0.66, very low-quality evidence) and at 6-month follow-up (SMD −1.07, 95% CI -2.45 to 0.31, very low-quality evidence). Data on dropouts from two studies with 95 participants showed a clear advantage for couple therapy (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.61, very low-quality evidence). However, this finding was heavily influenced by a single study, probably affected by a selection bias favouring couple therapy.\nThe comparison between couple therapy plus drug therapy and drug therapy alone showed no difference in depressive symptom level, based on two studies with 34 participants (SMD −1.04, 95% CI -3.97 to 1.89, very low-quality evidence) and on dropouts, based on two studies with 45 participants (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.52, very low-quality evidence).\nThe comparison with no/minimal treatment showed a large significant effect favouring couple therapy both for depressive symptom level, based on three studies with 90 participants: (SMD −0.95, 95% CI −1.59 to −0.32, very low-quality evidence) and persistence of depression, based on two studies with 65 participants (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.70, very low-quality evidence). No data were available for dropouts for this comparison.\nConcerning relationship distress, the comparison with individual psychotherapy showed that couple therapy appeared more effective in reducing distress level at the end of treatment, based on six studies with 187 participants (SMD −0.50, CI −0.97 to −0.02, very low-quality evidence) and the persistence of distress, based on two studies with 81 participants (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98, very low-quality evidence). The quality of evidence was heavily affected by substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 59%). In the analysis restricted to studies including only distressed couples, no heterogeneity was found and the effect in distress level at the end of treatment was larger (SMD −1.10, 95% CI −1.59 to −0.61). Very few data on this outcome were available for other comparisons.\nWe assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE system. The results were weakened by the low quality of evidence related to the effects on depressive symptoms, in comparison with individual psychotherapy, and by very low quality evidence for all other comparisons and for the effects on relationship distress. Most studies were affected by problems such as the small number of cases, performance bias, assessment bias due to the non-blinding outcome assessment, incomplete outcome reporting and the allegiance bias of investigators. Heterogeneity was, in particular, a problem for data about relationship distress.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough there is suggestion that couple therapy is as effective as individual psychotherapy in improving depressive symptoms and more effective in improving relations in distressed couples, the low or very low quality of the evidence seriously limits the possibility of drawing firm conclusions. Very few data were available for comparisons with no/minimal treatment and drug therapy. Future trials of high quality should test in large samples with a long follow-up of the effects of couple therapy in comparison to other interventions in discordant couples with a depressed partner, considering the role of relationship quality as a potential effect mediator in the improvement of depression.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Which studies were included in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We considered studies of couple therapy delivered in outpatient settings to couples in which a partner had a clinical diagnosis of depressive disorder. We included 14 studies with 651 participants .Thirteen of the studies were randomised controlled trials, where participants were assigned by chance alone to the couple therapy treatment group or usual care. However, one study was not completely randomised due to therapist availability."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6413
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common psychiatric conditions affecting children and adolescents. Amphetamines are among the most commonly prescribed medications to manage ADHD. There are three main classes of amphetamines: dexamphetamine, lisdexamphetamine and mixed amphetamine salts, which can be further broken down into short- and long-acting formulations. A systematic review assessing their efficacy and safety in this population has never been conducted.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of amphetamines for ADHD in children and adolescents.\nSearch methods\nIn August 2015 we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, and the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews identified by the searches. No language or date restrictions were applied.\nSelection criteria\nParallel-group and cross-over randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing amphetamine derivatives against placebo in a pediatric population (< 18 years) with ADHD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data on participants, settings, interventions, methodology, and outcomes for each included study. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and for dichotomous outcomes we calculated the risk ratio (RR). Where possible, we conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We also performed a meta-analysis of the most commonly reported adverse events in the primary studies.\nMain results\nWe included 23 trials (8 parallel-group and 15 cross-over trials), with 2675 children aged three years to 17 years. All studies compared amphetamines to placebo. Study durations ranged from 14 days to 365 days, with the majority lasting less than six months. Most studies were conducted in the United States; three studies were conducted across Europe. We judged 11 included studies to be at a high risk of bias due to insufficient blinding methods, failing to account for dropouts and exclusions from the analysis, and failing to report on all outcomes defined a priori. We judged the remaining 12 studies to be at unclear risk of bias due to inadequate reporting.\nAmphetamines improved total ADHD core symptom severity according to parent ratings (SMD -0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.86 to -0.27; 7 studies; 1247 children/adolescents; very low quality evidence), teacher ratings (SMD -0.55; 95% CI -0.83 to -0.27; 5 studies; 745 children/adolescents; low quality evidence), and clinician ratings (SMD -0.84; 95% CI -1.32 to -0.36; 3 studies; 813 children/adolescents; very low quality evidence). In addition, the proportion of responders as rated by the Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I) scale was higher when children were taking amphetamines (RR 3.36; 95% CI 2.48 to 4.55; 9 studies; 2207 children/adolescents; very low quality evidence).\nThe most commonly reported adverse events included decreased appetite, insomnia/trouble sleeping, abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, headaches, and anxiety. Amphetamines were associated with a higher proportion of participants experiencing decreased appetite (RR 6.31; 95% CI 2.58 to 15.46; 11 studies; 2467 children/adolescents), insomnia (RR 3.80; 95% CI 2.12 to 6.83; 10 studies; 2429 children/adolescents), and abdominal pain (RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.00; 10 studies; 2155 children/adolescents). In addition, the proportion of children who experienced at least one adverse event was higher in the amphetamine group (RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.44; 6 studies; 1742 children/adolescents; low quality evidence).\nWe performed subgroup analyses for amphetamine preparation (dexamphetamine, lisdexamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts), amphetamine release formulation (long acting versus short acting), and funding source (industry versus non industry). Between-group differences were observed for proportion of participants experiencing decreased appetite in both the amphetamine preparation (P < 0.00001) and amphetamine release formulation (P value = 0.008) subgroups, as well as for retention in the amphetamine release formulation subgroup (P value = 0.03).\nAuthors' conclusions\nMost of the included studies were at high risk of bias and the overall quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low on most outcomes. Although amphetamines seem efficacious at reducing the core symptoms of ADHD in the short term, they were associated with a number of adverse events. This review found no evidence that supports any one amphetamine derivative over another, and does not reveal any differences between long-acting and short-acting amphetamine preparations. Future trials should be longer in duration (i.e. more than 12 months), include more psychosocial outcomes (e.g. quality of life and parent stress), and be transparently reported.\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": "As of August 2015, we identified 23 randomized controlled trials (RCTs: a type of scientific experiment in which people are randomly assigned to one of two or more treatments), which included 2675 children and adolescents between three years and 17 years of age. These studies compared amphetamines to placebo. Three different kinds of amphetamines were investigated: dexamphetamine, lisdexamphetamine and mixed amphetamine salts. The duration of the included studies ranged from 14 days to 365 days. The RCTs were conducted in the United States and Europe.Key resultsWe found that amphetamines were effective at improving the core symptoms of ADHD in the short term, but that they were also linked to a higher risk of experiencing adverse events such as sleep problems, decreased appetite, and stomach pain. We found no evidence that one kind of amphetamine was better than another, and found no difference between amphetamines that act for longer periods of time versus those that act for shorter periods of time."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6414
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUnilateral cerebral palsy (CP) is a condition that affects muscle control and function on one side of the body. Children with unilateral CP experience difficulties using their hands together secondary to disturbances that occur in the developing fetal or infant brain. Often, the more affected limb is disregarded. Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) aims to increase use of the more affected upper limb and improve bimanual performance. CIMT is based on two principles: restraining the use of the less affected limb (for example, using a splint, mitt or sling) and intensive therapeutic practice of the more affected limb.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effect of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) in the treatment of the more affected upper limb in children with unilateral CP.\nSearch methods\nIn March 2018 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, OTseeker, five other databases and three trials registers. We also ran citation searches, checked reference lists, contacted experts, handsearched key journals and searched using Google Scholar.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs or clinically controlled trials implemented with children with unilateral CP, aged between 0 and 19 years, where CIMT was compared with a different form of CIMT, or a low dose, high-dose or dose-matched alternative form of upper-limb intervention such as bimanual intervention. Primarily, outcomes were bimanual performance, unimanual capacity and manual ability. Secondary outcomes included measures of self-care, body function, participation and quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts to eliminate ineligible studies. Five review authors were paired to extract data and assess risk of bias in each included study. GRADE assessments were undertaken by two review authors.\nMain results\nWe included 36 trials (1264 participants), published between 2004 and 2018. Sample sizes ranged from 11 to 105 (mean 35). Mean age was 5.96 years (standard deviation (SD) 1.82), range three months to 19.8 years; 53% male and 47% participants had left hemiplegia. Fifty-seven outcome measures were used across studies. Average length of CIMT programs was four weeks (range one to 10 weeks). Frequency of sessions ranged from twice weekly to seven days per week. Duration of intervention sessions ranged from 0.5 to eight hours per day. The mean total number of hours of CIMT provided was 137 hours (range 20 to 504 hours). The most common constraint devices were a mitt/glove or a sling (11 studies each).\nWe judged the risk of bias as moderate to high across the studies.\nKey results: Primary outcomes at primary endpoint (immediately after intervention)\nCIMT versus low-dose comparison (e.g. occupational therapy)\nWe found low-quality evidence that CIMT was more effective than a low-dose comparison for improving bimanual performance (mean difference (MD) 5.44 Assisting Hand Assessment (AHA) units, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.37 to 8.51).\nCIMT was more effective than a low-dose comparison for improving unimanual capacity (Quality of upper extremity skills test (QUEST) - Dissociated movement MD 5.95, 95% CI 2.02 to 9.87; Grasps; MD 7.57, 95% CI 2.10 to 13.05; Weight bearing MD 5.92, 95% CI 2.21 to 9.6; Protective extension MD 12.54, 95% CI 8.60 to 16.47). Three studies reported adverse events, including frustration, constraint refusal and reversible skin irritations from casting.\nCIMT versus high-dose comparison (e.g. individualised occupational therapy, bimanual therapy)\nWhen compared with a high-dose comparison, CIMT was not more effective for improving bimanual performance (MD −0.39 AHA Units, 95% CI −3.14 to 2.36). There was no evidence that CIMT was more effective than a high-dose comparison for improving unimanual capacity in a single study using QUEST (Dissociated movement MD 0.49, 95% CI −10.71 to 11.69; Grasp MD −0.20, 95% CI −11.84 to 11.44). Two studies reported that some children experienced frustration participating in CIMT.\nCIMT versus dose-matched comparison (e.g. Hand Arm Bimanual Intensive Therapy, bimanual therapy, occupational therapy)\nThere was no evidence of differences in bimanual performance between groups receiving CIMT or a dose-matched comparison (MD 0.80 AHA units, 95% CI −0.78 to 2.38).\nThere was no evidence that CIMT was more effective than a dose-matched comparison for improving unimanual capacity (Box and Blocks Test MD 1.11, 95% CI −0.06 to 2.28; Melbourne Assessment MD 1.48, 95% CI −0.49 to 3.44; QUEST Dissociated movement MD 6.51, 95% CI −0.74 to 13.76; Grasp, MD 6.63, 95% CI −2.38 to 15.65; Weightbearing MD −2.31, 95% CI −8.02 to 3.40) except for the Protective extension domain (MD 6.86, 95% CI 0.14 to 13.58).\nThere was no evidence of differences in manual ability between groups receiving CIMT or a dose-matched comparison (ABILHAND-Kids MD 0.74, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18). From 15 studies, two children did not tolerate CIMT and three experienced difficulty.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe quality of evidence for all conclusions was low to very low. For children with unilateral CP, there was some evidence that CIMT resulted in improved bimanual performance and unimanual capacity when compared to a low-dose comparison, but not when compared to a high-dose or dose-matched comparison. Based on the evidence available, CIMT appears to be safe for children with CP.\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": "To find out if CIMT helps children with unilateral (hemiplegic) CP to use their hands more effectively."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6415
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNitrous oxide has been used for over 160 years for the induction and maintenance of general anaesthesia. It has been used as a sole agent but is most often employed as part of a technique using other anaesthetic gases, intravenous agents, or both. Its low tissue solubility (and therefore rapid kinetics), low cost, and low rate of cardiorespiratory complications have made nitrous oxide by far the most commonly used general anaesthetic. The accumulating evidence regarding adverse effects of nitrous oxide administration has led many anaesthetists to question its continued routine use in a variety of operating room settings. Adverse events may result from both the biological actions of nitrous oxide and the fact that to deliver an effective dose, nitrous oxide, which is a relatively weak anaesthetic agent, needs to be given in high concentrations that restrict oxygen delivery (for example, a common mixture is 30% oxygen with 70% nitrous oxide). As well as the risk of low blood oxygen levels, concerns have also been raised regarding the risk of compromising the immune system, impaired cognition, postoperative cardiovascular complications, bowel obstruction from distention, and possible respiratory compromise.\nObjectives\nTo determine if nitrous oxide-based anaesthesia results in similar outcomes to nitrous oxide-free anaesthesia in adults undergoing surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014 Issue 10); MEDLINE (1966 to 17 October 2014); EMBASE (1974 to 17 October 2014); and ISI Web of Science (1974 to 17 October 2014). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings, and ongoing trials up to 17 October 2014 on specific websites (http://clinicaltrials.gov/, http://controlled-trials.com/, and http://www.centerwatch.com).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing general anaesthesia where nitrous oxide was part of the anaesthetic technique used for the induction or maintenance of general anaesthesia (or both) with any general anaesthesia using a volatile anaesthetic or propofol-based maintenance of anaesthesia but no nitrous oxide for adults undergoing surgery. Our primary outcome was inhospital case fatality rate. Secondary outcomes were complications and length of stay.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the outcome data. We used meta-analysis for data synthesis. Heterogeneity was examined with the Chi² test and by calculating the I² statistic. We used a fixed-effect model if the measure of inconsistency was low for all comparisons (I² statistic < 50%); otherwise we used a random-effects model for measures with high inconsistency. We undertook subgroup analyses to explore inconsistency and sensitivity analyses to evaluate whether the results were robust. We assessed the quality of evidence of the main outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.\nMain results\nWe included 35 trials (13,872 adult participants). Seven included studies were at low risk of bias. We identified eight studies as awaiting classification since we could not obtain the full texts, and had insufficient information to include or exclude them. We included data from 24 trials for quantitative synthesis. The results of meta-analyses showed that nitrous oxide-based techniques increased the incidence of pulmonary atelectasis (odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 2.10, P = 0.002), but had no effects on the inhospital case fatality rate, the incidence of pneumonia, myocardial infarction, stroke, severe nausea and vomiting, venous thromboembolism, wound infection, or the length of hospital stay. The sensitivity analyses suggested that the results of the meta-analyses were all robust except for the outcomes of pneumonia, and severe nausea and vomiting. Two trials reported length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay but the data were skewed so were not pooled. Both trials reported that nitrous oxide-based techniques had no effects on the length of ICU stay. We rated the quality of evidence for two outcomes (pulmonary atelectasis, myocardial infarction) as high, four outcomes (inhospital case fatality rate, stroke, venous thromboembolism, length of hospital stay) as moderate, and three (pneumonia, severe nausea and vomiting, wound infection rate) as low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the evidence from this Cochrane review, the avoidance of nitrous oxide may be reasonable in participants with pre-existing poor pulmonary function or at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Since there are eight studies awaiting classification, selection bias may exist in our systematic review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Nitrous oxide is an anaesthetic gas which has been used for more than 160 years for inducing anaesthesia and keeping patients anaesthetized throughout an operation. It is also known as 'laughing gas'. It is a colourless non-flammable gas with a pleasant, faint sweet odour and taste. Its low cost and low toxicity have made nitrous oxide by far the most commonly used general anaesthetic. However, some studies have reported that adding nitrous oxide may lead to harmful effects. This has led many anaesthetists to question its continued routine use in a variety of operating room settings.\nWe wanted to discover whether using nitrous oxide in general anaesthesia was better or worse than not using nitrous oxide."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6416
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOlder people living in nursing care facilities or older adults living at home are at high risk of falling and a hip fracture may occur after a fall. Hip protectors have been advocated as a means to reduce the risk of hip fracture. Hip protectors are plastic shields (hard) or foam pads (soft), usually fitted in pockets in specially designed underwear.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1999, and updated several times, most recently in 2010.\nObjectives\nTo determine if the provision of external hip protectors (sometimes referred to as hip pads or hip protector pads) reduces the risk of fracturing the hip in older people.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (December 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1950 to week 3 November 2012), MEDLINE In-Process (18 December 2012), EMBASE (1988 to 2012 Week 50), CINAHL (1982 to December 2012), BioMed Central (January 2010), trial registers and reference lists of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing an intervention group provided with hip protectors with a control group not provided with hip protectors.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We sought additional information from trialists. Data were pooled using fixed-effect or random-effects models as appropriate.\nMain results\nThis review includes 19 studies, nine of which were cluster randomised. These included approximately 17,000 people (mean age range 78 to 86 years). Most studies were overall at low risk of bias for fracture outcomes. Trials tested hard or soft hip protectors enclosed in special underwear in 18 studies.\nPooling of data from 14 studies (11,808 participants) conducted in nursing or residential care settings found moderate quality evidence for a small reduction in hip fracture risk (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.00); the absolute effect is 11 fewer people (95% CI, from 20 fewer to 0) per 1000 having a hip fracture when provided with hip protectors.\nThere is moderate quality evidence when pooling data from five trials in the community (5614 participants) that shows little or no effect in hip fracture risk (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.58); the absolute effect is two more people (95% CI 2 fewer to 6 more) per 1000 people having a hip fracture when provided with hip protectors.\nThere is probably little to no effect on falls (rate ratio 1.02, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.16) or fractures other than of the hip or pelvis (rate ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07). However, the risk ratio for pelvic fractures is RR 1.27 (95% CI 0.78 to 2.08); this is an absolute effect of one more person (95% CI 1 fewer to 5 more) per 1000 having a pelvic fracture when provided with hip protectors.\nThe incidence of adverse events while wearing hip protectors, including skin irritation, ranged from 0% to 5%. Adherence, particularly in the long term, was poor.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHip protectors probably reduce the risk of hip fractures if made available to older people in nursing care or residential care settings, without increasing the frequency of falls. However, hip protectors may slightly increase the small risk of pelvic fractures. Poor acceptance and adherence by older people offered hip protectors is a barrier to their use. Better understanding is needed of the personal and design factors that may influence acceptance and adherence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are hip protectors?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Older people living in nursing care facilities or older adults living at home are at high risk of falling and a hip fracture may occur after a fall. Hip protectors are plastic shields (hard) or foam pads (soft), usually fitted in pockets in specially designed underwear. They are worn to cushion a sideways fall on the hip."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6417
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe ideal objective of treating a person with epilepsy is to induce remission (free of seizures for some time) using antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and withdraw the AEDs without causing seizure recurrence. Prolonged usage of AEDs may have long-term adverse effects. Hence, when a person with epilepsy is in remission, it is logical to attempt to discontinue the medication. The timing of withdrawal and the mode of withdrawal arise while contemplating withdrawal of AEDs. This review examines the evidence for the rate of withdrawal of AEDs (whether rapid or slow tapering) and its effect on seizure recurrence.\nThis is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2020.\nObjectives\nTo quantify risk of seizure recurrence after rapid (tapering period of three months or less) or slow (tapering period of more than three months) discontinuation of antiepileptic drugs in adults and children with epilepsy who are in remission, and to assess which variables modify the risk of seizure recurrence.\nSearch methods\nFor the latest update, on 8 November 2021, we searched: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid), and SCOPUS. There were no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), CENTRAL, and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials that evaluated withdrawal of AEDs in a rapid or slow tapering after varying periods of seizure control in people with epilepsy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted the data. The outcomes assessed included seizure freedom after one, two, or five years of AED withdrawal; time to recurrence of seizure following withdrawal; occurrence of status epilepticus; mortality; morbidity due to seizure, such as injuries, fractures, and aspiration pneumonia; and quality of life (assessed by validated scale).\nMain results\nThere are two included studies in this review.\nOne study randomized 57 children with epilepsy with seizure freedom for at least two years to taper down the AED over one or six months. The study was not blinded and there were no details of randomization. Over the period of 54 months of follow-up, 20/30 participants in the one-month group remained seizure-free compared to 15/27 participants in the six-month group (no evidence of a difference). There was no information on time of seizure recurrence for each group to allow a comparison.\nThe other study involved 149 children. There was a non-significant trend towards a lower risk of seizure recurrence after one year of AED withdrawal in participants allocated to slow tapering (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.01; P = 0.06; very low-certainty evidence). At the end of two years, 30 participants were seizure free in the rapid-tapering group and 29 participants in the slow-tapering group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.29; P = 0.48; very low-certainty evidence). At the end of five years, 10 participants were seizure free in the rapid-tapering group and six participants in the slow-tapering group (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.65; P = 0.49; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data for the other outcomes.\nDue to the methodological heterogeneity and the difference in the duration of tapering, we did not perform a quantitative synthesis of these studies.\nCurrently, one Italian trial is ongoing that is investigating if a slow or a rapid withdrawal schedule of AEDs influences return of seizures (relapse) in adults with focal or generalized epilepsy who have been seizure free for at least two years (no preliminary results available).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn view of methodological deficiencies, and small sample size of the two included studies, we cannot draw any reliable conclusions regarding the optimal rate of tapering of AEDs. Using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low for outcomes for which data were available. We judged both studies to be at an overall high risk of bias.\nFurther studies are needed in adults and children to investigate the optimal rate of withdrawal of AEDs and to study the effects of variables such as seizure types, aetiology, intellectual disability, electroencephalography abnormalities, presence of neurological deficits, and other comorbidities on the rate of tapering.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Aim of the review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review analyzed studies for evidence regarding rapidity of withdrawal of antiepileptic medicines. We included randomized controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) evaluating the rapid or slow withdrawal (tapering down) of these medicines after varying periods of seizure control in people with epilepsy."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6418
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with cancer with febrile neutropenia are at risk of severe infections and mortality and are thus treated empirically with broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy. However, the recommended duration of antibiotic therapy differs across guidelines.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety of protocol-guided discontinuation of antibiotics regardless of neutrophil count, compared to continuation of antibiotics until neutropenia resolution in people with cancer with fever and neutropenia, in terms of mortality and morbidity. To assess the emergence of resistant bacteria in people with cancer treated with short courses of antibiotic therapy compared with people with cancer treated until resolution of neutropenia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 10) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS up to 1 October 2018. We searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing and unpublished trials. We reviewed the references of all identified studies for additional trials and handsearched conference proceedings of international infectious diseases and oncology and haematology conferences.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a short antibiotic therapy course in which discontinuation of antibiotics was guided by protocols regardless of the neutrophil count to a long course in which antibiotics were continued until neutropenia resolution in people with cancer with febrile neutropenia. The primary outcome was 30-day or end of follow-up all-cause mortality.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed all studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for all included trials. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) whenever possible. For dichotomous outcomes with zero events in both arms of the trials, we conducted meta-analysis of risk differences (RDs) as well. For continuous outcomes, we extracted means with standard deviations (SD) from the studies and computed mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. If no substantial clinical heterogeneity was found, trials were pooled using the Mantel–Haenszel fixed-effect model.\nMain results\nWe included eight RCTs comprising a total of 662 distinct febrile neutropenia episodes. The studies included adults and children, and had variable design and criteria for discontinuation of antibiotics in both study arms. All included studies but two were performed before the year 2000. All studies included people with cancer with fever of unknown origin and excluded people with microbiological documented infections.\nWe found no significant difference between the short-antibiotic therapy arm and the long-antibiotic therapy arm for all-cause mortality (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.62; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.05; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision and high risk of selection bias. The number of fever days was significantly lower for people in the short-antibiotic treatment arm compared to the long-antibiotic treatment arm (mean difference -0.64, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.32; I² = 30%). In all studies, total antibiotic days were fewer in the intervention arm by three to seven days compared to the long antibiotic therapy. We found no significant differences in the rates of clinical failure (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.77; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for clinical failure due to variable and inconsistent definitions of clinical failure across studies, possible selection bias, and wide confidence intervals. There was no significant difference in the incidence of bacteraemia occurring after randomisation (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.66; very low-certainty evidence), while the incidence of any documented infections was significantly higher in the short-antibiotic therapy arm (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.57). There was no significant difference in the incidence of invasive fungal infections (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.31) and development of antibiotic resistance (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.61). The data on hospital stay were too sparse to permit any meaningful conclusions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe could make no strong conclusions on the safety of antibiotic discontinuation before neutropenia resolution among people with cancer with febrile neutropenia based on the existing evidence and its low certainty. Results of microbiological outcomes favouring long antibiotic therapy may be misleading due to lower culture positivity rates under antibiotic therapy and not true differences in infection rates. Well-designed, adequately powered RCTs are required that address this issue in the era of rising antibiotic resistance.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The overall certainty of evidence was low or very low, permitting little confidence in the results presented. Most of the included studies were old and not adequately designed. There were also many differences between the studies in terms of design and inclusion criteria. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality as low and for the outcomes of clinical failure and bacteraemia occurring after randomisation as very low."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6419
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPatients with newly diagnosed high-risk (HR) neuroblastoma (NBL) still have a poor outcome, despite multi-modality intensive therapy. This poor outcome necessitates the search for new therapies, such as treatment with 131I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine (131I-MIBG).\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and adverse effects of 131I-MIBG therapy in patients with newly diagnosed HR NBL.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1945 to 25 April 2016) and Embase (Ovid) (1980 to 25 April 2016). In addition, we handsearched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. We also assessed the conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology, Advances in Neuroblastoma Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology; all from 2010 up to and including 2015. We scanned the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register (www.isrctn.com) and the National Institutes of Health Register for ongoing trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov) on 13 April 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), non-randomised single-arm trials with historical controls and cohort studies examining the efficacy of 131I-MIBG therapy in 10 or more patients with newly diagnosed HR NBL.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed the study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.\nMain results\nWe identified two eligible cohort studies including 60 children with newly diagnosed HR NBL. All studies had methodological limitations, with regard to both internal (risk of bias) and external validity. As the studies were not comparable with regard to prognostic factors and treatment (and often used different outcome definitions), pooling of results was not possible. In one study, the objective response rate (ORR) was 73% after surgery; the median overall survival was 15 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 7 to 23); five-year overall survival was 14.6%; median event-free survival was 10 months (95% CI 7 to 13); and five-year event-free survival was 12.2%. In the other study, the ORR was 56% after myeloablative therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation; 10-year overall survival was 6.25%; and event-free survival was not reported. With regard to short-term adverse effects, one study showed a prevalence of 2% (95% CI 0% to 13%; best-case scenario) for death due to myelosuppression. After the first cycle of 131I-MIBG therapy in one study, platelet toxicity occurred in 38% (95% CI 18% to 61%), neutrophil toxicity in 50% (95% CI 28% to 72%) and haemoglobin toxicity in 69% (95% CI 44% to 86%); after the second cycle this was 60% (95% CI 36% to 80%) for platelets and neutrophils and 53% (95% CI 30% to 75%) for haemoglobin. In one study, the prevalence of hepatic toxicity during or within four weeks after last the MIBG treatment was 0% (95% CI 0% to 9%; best-case scenario). Neither study reported cardiovascular toxicity and sialoadenitis. One study assessed long-term adverse events in some of the children: there was elevated plasma thyroid-stimulating hormone in 45% (95% CI 27% to 65%) of children; in all children, free T4 was within the age-related normal range (0%, 95% CI 0% to 15%). There were no secondary malignancies observed (0%, 95% CI 0% to 9%), but only five children survived more than four years.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified no RCTs or CCTs comparing the effectiveness of treatment including 131I-MIBG therapy versus treatment not including 131I-MIBG therapy in patients with newly diagnosed HR NBL. We found two small observational studies including chilren. They had high risk of bias, and not all relevant outcome results were available. Based on the currently available evidence, we cannot make recommendations for the use of 131I-MIBG therapy in patients with newly diagnosed HR NBL in clinical practice. More high-quality research is needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "All studies had problems relating to quality of the evidence."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6420
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDental plaque associated gingivitis is a reversible inflammatory condition caused by accumulation and persistence of microbial biofilms (dental plaque) on the teeth. It is characterised by redness and swelling of the gingivae (gums) and a tendency for the gingivae to bleed easily. In susceptible individuals, gingivitis may lead to periodontitis and loss of the soft tissue and bony support for the tooth. It is thought that chlorhexidine mouthrinse may reduce the build-up of plaque thereby reducing gingivitis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for the control of gingivitis and plaque compared to mechanical oral hygiene procedures alone or mechanical oral hygiene procedures plus placebo/control mouthrinse. Mechanical oral hygiene procedures were toothbrushing with/without the use of dental floss or interdental cleaning aids and could include professional tooth cleaning/periodontal treatment.\nTo determine whether the effect of chlorhexidine mouthrinse is influenced by chlorhexidine concentration, or frequency of rinsing (once/day versus twice/day).\nTo report and describe any adverse effects associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use from included trials.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 28 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 28 September 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 28 September 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 28 September 2016); and CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 28 September 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for at least 4 weeks on gingivitis in children and adults. Mechanical oral hygiene procedures were toothbrushing with/without use of dental floss or interdental cleaning aids and could include professional tooth cleaning/periodontal treatment. We included trials where participants had gingivitis or periodontitis, where participants were healthy and where some or all participants had medical conditions or special care needs.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the search results extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We attempted to contact study authors for missing data or clarification where feasible. For continuous outcomes, we used means and standard deviations to obtain the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We combined MDs where studies used the same scale and standardised mean differences (SMDs) where studies used different scales. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs. Due to anticipated heterogeneity we used random-effects models for all meta-analyses.\nMain results\nWe included 51 studies that analysed a total of 5345 participants. One study was assessed as being at unclear risk of bias, with the remaining 50 being at high risk of bias, however, this did not affect the quality assessments for gingivitis and plaque as we believe that further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.\nGingivitis\nAfter 4 to 6 weeks of use, chlorhexidine mouthrinse reduced gingivitis (Gingival Index (GI) 0 to 3 scale) by 0.21 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.31) compared to placebo, control or no mouthrinse (10 trials, 805 participants with mild gingival inflammation (mean score 1 on the GI scale) analysed, high-quality evidence). A similar effect size was found for reducing gingivitis at 6 months. There were insufficient data to determine the reduction in gingivitis associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use in individuals with mean GI scores of 1.1 to 3 (moderate or severe levels of gingival inflammation).\nPlaque\nPlaque was measured by different indices and the SMD at 4 to 6 weeks was 1.45 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.90) standard deviations lower in the chlorhexidine group (12 trials, 950 participants analysed, high-quality evidence), indicating a large reduction in plaque. A similar large reduction was found for chlorhexidine mouthrinse use at 6 months.\nExtrinsic tooth staining\nThere was a large increase in extrinsic tooth staining in participants using chlorhexidine mouthrinse at 4 to 6 weeks. The SMD was 1.07 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.34) standard deviations higher (eight trials, 415 participants analysed, moderate-quality evidence) in the chlorhexidine mouthrinse group. There was also a large increase in extrinsic tooth staining in participants using chlorhexidine mouthrinse at 7 to 12 weeks and 6 months.\nCalculus\nResults for the effect of chlorhexidine mouthrinse on calculus formation were inconclusive.\nEffect of concentration and frequency of rinsing\nThere were insufficient data to determine whether there was a difference in effect for either chlorhexidine concentration or frequency of rinsing.\nOther adverse effects\nThe adverse effects most commonly reported in the included studies were taste disturbance/alteration (reported in 11 studies), effects on the oral mucosa including soreness, irritation, mild desquamation and mucosal ulceration/erosions (reported in 13 studies) and a general burning sensation or a burning tongue or both (reported in nine studies).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is high-quality evidence from studies that reported the Löe and Silness Gingival Index of a reduction in gingivitis in individuals with mild gingival inflammation on average (mean score of 1 on the 0 to 3 GI scale) that was not considered to be clinically relevant. There is high-quality evidence of a large reduction in dental plaque with chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for 4 to 6 weeks and 6 months. There is no evidence that one concentration of chlorhexidine rinse is more effective than another. There is insufficient evidence to determine the reduction in gingivitis associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use in individuals with mean GI scores of 1.1 to 3 indicating moderate or severe levels of gingival inflammation. Rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinse for 4 weeks or longer causes extrinsic tooth staining. In addition, other adverse effects such as calculus build up, transient taste disturbance and effects on the oral mucosa were reported in the included studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Gingivitis is a reversible condition when gums become red, swollen and can bleed easily. Gingivitis is also very common - studies suggest that as many as 50% to 90% of adults in the UK and USA suffer from it. In susceptible people gingivitis may lead to periodontitis, which is not reversible. In periodontitis inflammation is accompanied by loss of ligaments and bone supporting the teeth. If untreated it may eventually lead to tooth loss. Severe periodontitis is the sixth most widespread disease globally.\nIt is recognised that maintaining a high standard of oral hygiene is important for the prevention and treatment of gingivitis. Toothbrushing is the main method for maintaining good oral hygiene. Other cleaning methods commonly used include dental floss, interdental brushes and scaling and polishing carried out by a dental professional. Some people have difficulty controlling plaque build-up and preventing gingivitis using only conventional tooth cleaning. Therefore people sometimes use mouthrinses containing chlorhexidine in addition to conventional tooth cleaning. These mouthrinses are readily available over the counter; prescriptions generally not being required outside the USA."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6421
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIndividuals with pulmonary hypertension (PH) have reduced exercise capacity and quality of life. Despite initial concerns that exercise training may worsen symptoms in this group, several studies have reported improvements in functional capacity and well-being following exercise-based rehabilitation.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise-based rehabilitation for people with PH compared with usual care or no exercise-based rehabilitation.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 28 June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with PH comparing supervised exercise-based rehabilitation programmes with usual care or no exercise-based rehabilitation.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. exercise capacity, 2. serious adverse events during the intervention period and 3. health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Our secondary outcomes were 4. cardiopulmonary haemodynamics, 5. Functional Class, 6. clinical worsening during follow-up, 7. mortality and 8. changes in B-type natriuretic peptide. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included eight new studies in the current review, which now includes 14 RCTs. We extracted data from 11 studies. The studies had low- to moderate-certainty evidence with evidence downgraded due to inconsistencies in the data and performance bias. The total number of participants in meta-analyses comparing exercise-based rehabilitation to control groups was 462. The mean age of the participants in the 14 RCTs ranged from 35 to 68 years. Most participants were women and classified as Group I pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Study durations ranged from 3 to 25 weeks. Exercise-based programmes included both inpatient- and outpatient-based rehabilitation that incorporated both upper and lower limb exercise.\nThe mean six-minute walk distance following exercise-based rehabilitation was 48.52 metres higher than control (95% confidence interval (CI) 33.42 to 63.62; I² = 72%; 11 studies, 418 participants; low-certainty evidence), the mean peak oxygen uptake was 2.07 mL/kg/min higher than control (95% CI 1.57 to 2.57; I² = 67%; 7 studies, 314 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the mean peak power was 9.69 W higher than control (95% CI 5.52 to 13.85; I² = 71%; 5 studies, 226 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three studies reported five serious adverse events; however, exercise-based rehabilitation was not associated with an increased risk of serious adverse event (risk difference 0, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.03; I² = 0%; 11 studies, 439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The mean change in HRQoL for the 36-item Short Form (SF-36) Physical Component Score was 3.98 points higher (95% CI 1.89 to 6.07; I² = 38%; 5 studies, 187 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and for the SF-36 Mental Component Score was 3.60 points higher (95% CI 1.21 to 5.98 points; I² = 0%; 5 RCTs, 186 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were similar effects in the subgroup analyses for participants with Group 1 PH versus studies of groups with mixed PH. Two studies reported mean reduction in mean pulmonary arterial pressure following exercise-based rehabilitation (mean reduction: 9.29 mmHg, 95% CI −12.96 to −5.61; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 133 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn people with PH, supervised exercise-based rehabilitation may result in a large increase in exercise capacity. Changes in exercise capacity remain heterogeneous and cannot be explained by subgroup analysis. It is likely that exercise-based rehabilitation increases HRQoL and is probably not associated with an increased risk of a serious adverse events. Exercise training may result in a large reduction in mean pulmonary arterial pressure. Overall, we assessed the certainty of the evidence to be low for exercise capacity and mean pulmonary arterial pressure, and moderate for HRQoL and adverse events. Future RCTs are needed to inform the application of exercise-based rehabilitation across the spectrum of people with PH, including those with chronic thromboembolic PH, PH with left-sided heart disease and those with more severe 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": "In people with pulmonary hypertension who are medically stable, exercise-based rehabilitation is most likely to be safe and improve quality of life. The evidence suggests that exercise-based rehabilitation may result in a large increase in exercise capacity and a reduction in mean pulmonary arterial pressure."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6422
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, pressure sores, or pressure injuries, are localised damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue, usually caused by intense or long-term pressure, shear, or friction. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been widely used in the treatment of pressure ulcers, but its effect needs to be further clarified. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of NPWT for treating adult with pressure ulcers in any care setting.\nSearch methods\nOn 13 January 2022, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP Search Portal for ongoing and unpublished studies and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of NPWT in the treatment of adults with pressure ulcers (stage II or above).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently conducted study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion with a third review author.\nMain results\nThis review included eight RCTs with a total of 327 randomised participants. Six of the eight included studies were deemed to be at a high risk of bias in one or more risk of bias domains, and evidence for all outcomes of interest was deemed to be of very low certainty. Most studies had small sample sizes (range: 12 to 96, median: 37 participants).\nFive studies compared NPWT with dressings, but only one study reported usable primary outcome data (complete wound healing and adverse events). This study had only 12 participants and there were very few events; only one participant was healed in the study (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 61.74, very low-certainly evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with adverse events in the NPWT group and the dressing group, but the evidence for this outcome was also assessed as very low certainty (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.44, very low-certainty evidence). Changes in ulcer size, pressure ulcer severity, cost, and pressure ulcer scale for healing (PUSH) sores were also reported, but we were unable to draw conclusions due to the low certainly of the evidence.\nOne study compared NPWT with a series of gel treatments, but this study provided no usable data. Another study compared NPWT with 'moist wound healing', which did not report primary outcome data. Changes in ulcer size and cost were reported in this study, but we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty; One study compared NPWT combined with internet-plus home care with standard care, but no primary outcome data were reported. Changes in ulcer size, pain, and dressing change times were reported, but we also assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty.\nNone of the included studies reported time to complete healing, health-related quality of life, wound infection, or wound recurrence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe efficacy, safety, and acceptability of NPWT in treating pressure ulcers compared to usual care are uncertain due to the lack of key data on complete wound healing, adverse events, time to complete healing, and cost-effectiveness.\nCompared with usual care, using NPWT may speed up the reduction of pressure ulcer size and severity of pressure ulcer, reduce pain, and dressing change times. Still, trials were small, poorly described, had short follow-up times, and with a high risk of bias; any conclusions drawn from the current evidence should be interpreted with considerable caution. In the future, high-quality research with large sample sizes and low risk of bias is still needed to further verify the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of NPWT in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Future researchers need to recognise the importance of complete and accurate reporting of clinically important outcomes such as the complete healing rate, healing time, and adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How are pressure ulcers managed?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There is a wide variety of treatment options available for pressure ulcers, such as dressings, reconstructive surgery, redistribution of pressure, electrical stimulation, and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). NPWT is a technology that is used widely and is promoted for use on wounds, including pressure ulcers. In NPWT, a machine that exerts carefully controlled suction (negative pressure) is attached to a wound dressing that covers the pressure ulcer. This sucks any wound and tissue fluid away from the treated area into a canister. The researchers tried to discover whether NPWT works well as a treatment for pressure ulcers."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6423
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nShortening the duration of radiation therapy would benefit women with early breast cancer treated with breast conserving surgery. It may also improve access to radiation therapy by improving efficiency in radiation oncology departments globally. This can only happen if the shorter treatment is as effective and safe as conventional radiation therapy. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and updated in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of altered radiation fraction size for women with early breast cancer who have had breast conserving surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register (23 May 2015), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (Jan 1996 to May 2015), EMBASE (Jan 1980 to May 2015), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (June 2010 to May 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (16 April 2015), reference lists of articles and relevant conference proceedings. No language or publication constraints were applied.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of altered fraction size versus conventional fractionation for radiation therapy in women with early breast cancer who had undergone breast conserving surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors performed data extraction independently, with disagreements resolved by discussion. We sought missing data from trial authors.\nMain results\nWe studied 8228 women in nine studies. Eight out of nine studies were at low or unclear risk of bias. Altered fraction size (delivering radiation therapy in larger amounts each day but over fewer days than with conventional fractionation) did not have a clinically meaningful effect on: local recurrence-free survival (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.15, 7095 women, four studies, high-quality evidence), cosmetic outcome (Risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.01, 2103 women, four studies, high-quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.03, 5685 women, three studies, high-quality evidence). Acute radiation skin toxicity (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.45, 357 women, two studies) was reduced with altered fraction size. Late radiation subcutaneous toxicity did not differ with altered fraction size (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05, 5130 women, four studies, high-quality evidence). Breast cancer-specific survival (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, 5685 women, three studies, high quality evidence) and relapse-free survival (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.05, 5685 women, three studies, moderate-quality evidence) did not differ with altered fraction size. We found no data for mastectomy rate. Altered fraction size was associated with less patient-reported (P < 0.001) and physician-reported (P = 0.009) fatigue at six months (287 women, one study). We found no difference in the issue of altered fractionation for patient-reported outcomes of: physical well-being (P = 0.46), functional well-being (P = 0.38), emotional well-being (P = 0.58), social well-being (P = 0.32), breast cancer concerns (P = 0.94; 287 women, one study). We found no data with respect to costs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that using altered fraction size regimens (greater than 2 Gy per fraction) does not have a clinically meaningful effect on local recurrence, is associated with decreased acute toxicity and does not seem to affect breast appearance, late toxicity or patient-reported quality-of-life measures for selected women treated with breast conserving therapy. These are mostly women with node negative tumours smaller than 3 cm and negative pathological margins.\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 evidence is current up to May 2015. Local recurrence was not different for women having fewer treatments (four fewer local relapses per 1000 (where the true value may be anywhere between 16 fewer to 10 more local relapses per 1000)). Breast appearance was not different for women undergoing fewer treatments (31 fewer fair/poor breast appearance per 1000 (where the true value may be anywhere between 59 fewer to 3 more per 1000 with fair/poor breast appearance)). Survival was not altered by having fewer treatments (13 fewer deaths per 1000 (where the true value could be between 31 fewer to 5 more deaths per 1000)) and there was no significant difference in late skin toxicity (4 more episodes of toxicity per 1000; where the true value may be anywhere between 14 fewer to 36 more episodes of toxicity per 1000) or radiation toxicity. Acute skin toxicity is decreased with fewer treatments (326 fewer events per 1000 (where the true value may be anywhere between 264 fewer to 374 fewer acute skin toxicity events per 1000)). This review indicates that for women who fit these criteria, using fewer radiation treatments after tumour removal gives the same cancer control, with less skin reaction at the time and the likely the same side-effects in the long term."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6424
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly being used to treat people with COPD who have respiratory failure, but the evidence supporting this treatment has been conflicting.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of chronic non-invasive ventilation at home via a facial mask in people with COPD, using a pooled analysis of IPD and meta-analysis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Register of Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, AMED, proceedings of respiratory conferences, clinical trial registries and bibliographies of relevant studies. We conducted the latest search on 21 December 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chronic NIV for at least five hours per night for three consecutive weeks or more (in addition to standard care) versus standard care alone, in people with COPD. Studies investigating people initiated on NIV in a stable phase and studies investigating NIV commenced after a severe COPD exacerbation were eligible, but we reported and analysed them separately. The primary outcomes were arterial blood gases, health-related quality of life (HRQL), exercise capacity (stable COPD) and admission-free survival (post-exacerbation COPD). Secondary outcomes for both populations were: lung function, COPD exacerbations and admissions, and all-cause mortality. For stable COPD, we also reported respiratory muscle strength, dyspnoea and sleep efficiency.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. After inclusion of a study, we requested the IPD. We analysed continuous and time-to-event data using linear- and cox-regression mixed-effect models with a random effect on study level. We analysed dichotomous IPD using generalised estimating equations. We adjusted all models for age and sex. We assessed changes in outcomes after three and 12 months. We also conducted a meta-analysis on aggregated trial data.\nMain results\nWe included 14 new RCTs in this review update, in addition to the seven previously included. Seventeen studies investigated chronic NIV in stable COPD and four studies investigated chronic NIV commenced after a severe COPD exacerbation. Three studies compared NIV to sham continuous positive airway pressure (2 to 4 cmH2O). Seven studies used a nasal mask, one study used an oronasal mask and eight studies used both interfaces. Five studies did not report the interface. The majority of trials (20/21) were at high risk of performance bias due to an unblinded design. We considered 11 studies to have a low risk of selection bias and 13 to have a low risk of attrition bias. We collected and analysed the IPD from 13 stable COPD studies (n = 778, 68% of the participants included) and from three post-exacerbation studies (n = 364, 96% of the participants included).\nIn the stable COPD group, NIV probably results in a minor benefit on the arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) after three months (adjusted mean difference (AMD) 0.27 kPa, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.49; 9 studies, 271 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but there was little to no benefit at 12 months (AMD 0.09 kPa, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.42; 3 studies, 171 participants; low-certainty evidence). The arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) was reduced in participants allocated to NIV after three months (AMD -0.61 kPa, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.45; 11 studies, 475 participants; high-certainty evidence) and persisted up to 12 months (AMD -0.42 kPa, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.16; 4 studies, 232 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nExercise capacity was measured with the 6-minute walking distance (minimal clinical important difference: 26 m). There was no clinically relevant effect of NIV on exercise capacity (3 months: AMD 15.5 m, 95% CI -0.8 to 31.7; 8 studies, 330 participants; low-certainty evidence; 12 months: AMD 26.4 m, 95% CI -7.6 to 60.5; 3 studies, 134 participants; very low-certainty evidence). HRQL was measured with the Severe Respiratory Insufficiency and the St. Georges's Respiratory Questionnaire and may be improved by NIV, but only after three months (3 months: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.62; 5 studies, 259 participants; very low-certainty evidence; 12 months: SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.43; 4 studies, 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Lastly, the risk for all-cause mortality is likely reduced by NIV (adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.97; 3 studies, 405 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nIn the post-exacerbation COPD group, there was little to no benefit on the PaO2 after three months, but there may be a slight decrease after 12 months (3 months: AMD -0.10 kPa, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.45; 3 studies, 234 participants; low-certainty evidence; 12 months: -0.27 kPa, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.32, 3 studies; 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). The PaCO2 was reduced by NIV at both three months (AMD -0.40 kPa, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.09; 3 studies, 241 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 12 months (AMD -0.52 kPa, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.18; 3 studies, 175 participants; high-certainty evidence). NIV may have little to no benefit on HRQL (3 months: SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.51; 2 studies, 219 participants; very low-certainty evidence; 12 months: SMD 0.25, 95% -0.06 to 0.55; 2 studies, 164 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Admission-free survival seems improved with NIV (AHR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94; 2 studies, 317 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the risk for all-cause mortality does not seem to improve (AHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28; 2 studies, 317 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nRegardless of the timing of initiation, chronic NIV improves daytime hypercapnia. In addition, in stable COPD, survival seems to be improved and there might be a short term HRQL benefit. In people with persistent hypercapnia after a COPD exacerbation, chronic NIV might prolong admission-free survival without a beneficial effect on HRQL.\nIn stable COPD, future RCTs comparing NIV to a control group receiving standard care might no longer be warranted, but research should focus on identifying participant characteristics that would define treatment success. Furthermore, the optimal timing for initiation of NIV after a severe COPD exacerbation is still unknown.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Our confidence in the certainty (according to GRADE criteria) is good when looking at the blood gases. For the other outcomes, the certainty of the evidence is moderate to very low because the participants and the researcher were aware of the treatment the people received, and due to a wide range in the observed effect. This means that further research might change the results."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6425
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nZinc deficiency is a global nutritional problem, particularly in children and women residing in settings where diets are cereal based and monotonous. It has several negative health consequences. Fortification of staple foods with zinc may be an effective strategy for preventing zinc deficiency and improving zinc-related health outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the beneficial and adverse effects of fortification of staple foods with zinc on health-related outcomes and biomarkers of zinc status in the general population.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases in April 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3 of 12, 2015, the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE & MEDLINE In Process (OVID) (1950 to 8 April 2015), EMBASE (OVID) (1974 to 8 April 2015), CINAHL (1982 to April 2015), Web of Science (1900 to 9 April 2015), BIOSIS (1969 to 9 April 2015), POPLINE (1970 to April 2015), AGRICOLA, OpenGrey, BiblioMap, and Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions (TRoPHI), besides regional databases (April 2015) and theses. We also searched clinical trial registries (17 March 2015) and contacted relevant organisations (May 2014) in order to identify ongoing and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials, randomised either at the level of the individual or cluster. We also included non-randomised trials at the level of the individual if there was a concurrent comparison group. We included non-randomised cluster trials and controlled before-after studies only if there were at least two intervention sites and two control sites. Interventions included fortification (central/industrial) of staple foods (cereal flours, edible fats, sugar, condiments, seasonings, milk and beverages) with zinc for a minimum period of two weeks. Participants were members of the general population who were over two years of age (including pregnant and lactating women) from any country.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data from included studies, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies.\nMain results\nWe included eight trials (709 participants); seven were from middle-income countries of Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America where zinc deficiency is likely to be a public health problem. Four trials compared the effect of zinc-fortified staple foods with unfortified foods (comparison 1), and four compared zinc-fortified staple foods in combination with other nutrients/factors with the same foods containing other nutrients or factors without zinc (comparison 2). The interventions lasted between one and nine months. We categorised most trials as having unclear or high risk of bias for randomisation, but low risk of bias for blinding and attrition. None of the studies in comparison 1 reported data on zinc deficiency.\nFoods fortified with zinc increased the serum or plasma zinc levels in comparison to foods without added zinc (mean difference (MD) 2.12 µmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 3.00 µmol/L; 3 studies; 158 participants; low-quality evidence). Participants consuming foods fortified with zinc versus participants consuming the same food without zinc had similar risk of underweight (average risk ratio 3.10, 95% CI 0.52 to 18.38; 2 studies; 397 participants; low-quality evidence) and stunting (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.13; 2 studies; 397 participants; low-quality evidence). A single trial of addition of zinc to iron in wheat flour did not find a reduction in proportion of zinc deficiency (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.94; very low-quality evidence). We did not find a difference in serum or plasma zinc levels in participants consuming foods fortified with zinc plus other micronutrients when compared with participants consuming the same foods with micronutrients but no added zinc (MD 0.03 µmol/L, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.72 µmol/L; 4 studies; 250 participants; low-quality evidence). No trial in comparison 2 provided information about underweight or stunting.\nThere was no reported adverse effect of fortification of foods with zinc on indicators of iron or copper status.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFortification of foods with zinc may improve the serum zinc status of populations if zinc is the only micronutrient used for fortification. If zinc is added to food in combination with other micronutrients, it may make little or no difference to the serum zinc status. Effects of fortification of foods with zinc on other outcomes including zinc deficiency, children’s growth, cognition, work capacity of adults, or on haematological indicators are unknown. Given the small number of trials and participants in each trial, further investigation of these outcomes is required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included eight trials (709 participants); seven were from middle-income countries of Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America where zinc deficiency is likely to be a public health problem."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6426
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInfants born at term by elective caesarean section are more likely to develop respiratory morbidity than infants born vaginally. Prophylactic corticosteroids in singleton preterm pregnancies accelerate lung maturation and reduce the incidence of respiratory complications. It is unclear whether administration at term gestations, prior to caesarean section, improves the respiratory outcomes for these babies without causing any unnecessary morbidity to the mother or the infant.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to assess the effect of prophylactic corticosteroid administration before elective caesarean section at term, as compared to usual care (which could be placebo or no treatment), on fetal, neonatal and maternal morbidity. We also assessed the impact of the treatment on the child in later life.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov (20 January 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic antenatal corticosteroid administration (betamethasone or dexamethasone) with placebo or with no treatment, given before elective caesarean section at term (at or after 37 weeks of gestation). Quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised controlled trials were also eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, evaluated trustworthiness (based on predefined criteria developed by Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth), extracted data and checked them for accuracy and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), transient tachypnoea of the neonate (TTN), admission to neonatal special care for respiratory morbidity and need for mechanical ventilation.\nWe planned to perform subgroup analyses for the primary outcomes according to gestational age at randomisation and type of corticosteroid (betamethasone or dexamethasone). We also planned to perform sensitivity analysis, including only studies at low risk of bias.\nMain results\nWe included one trial in which participants were randomised to receive either betamethasone or usual care. The trial included 942 women and 942 neonates recruited from 10 UK hospitals between 1995 and 2002. This review includes only trials that met predefined criteria for trustworthiness. We removed three trials from the analysis that were included in the previous version of this review.\nThe risk of bias was low for random sequence generation, allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. The risk of bias for selective outcome reporting was unclear because there was no published trial protocol, and therefore it is unclear whether all the planned outcomes were reported in full. Due to a lack of blinding we judged there to be high risk of performance bias and detection bias. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of concerns about risk of bias and because of imprecision due to low event rates and wide 95% confidence intervals (CIs), which are consistent with possible benefit and possible harm\nCompared with usual care, it is uncertain if antenatal corticosteroids reduce the risk of RDS (relative risk (RR) 0.34 95% CI 0.07 to 1.65; 1 study; 942 infants) or TTN (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.11; 1 study; 938 infants) because the certainty of evidence is low and the 95% CIs are consistent with possible benefit and possible harm.\nAntenatal corticosteroids probably reduce the risk of admission to neonatal special care for respiratory complications, compared with usual care (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.90; 1 study; 942 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). The proportion of infants admitted to neonatal special care for respiratory morbidity after treatment with antenatal corticosteroids was 2.3% compared with 5.1% in the usual care group.\nIt is uncertain if antenatal steroids have any effect on the risk of needing mechanical ventilation, compared with usual care (RR 4.07, 95% CI 0.46 to 36.27; 1 study; 942 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of antenatal corticosteroids on the maternal development of postpartum infection/pyrexia in the first 72 hours is unclear due to the very low certainty of the evidence; one study (942 women) reported zero cases. The included studies did not report any data for neonatal hypoglycaemia or maternal mortality/severe morbidity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence from one randomised controlled trial suggests that prophylactic corticosteroids before elective caesarean section at term probably reduces admission to the neonatal intensive care unit for respiratory morbidity. It is uncertain if administration of antenatal corticosteroids reduces the rates of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) or transient tachypnoea of the neonate (TTN). The overall certainty of the evidence for the primary outcomes was found to be low or very low, apart from the outcome of admission to neonatal special care (all levels) for respiratory morbidity, for which the evidence was of moderate certainty. Therefore, there is currently insufficient data to draw any firm conclusions.\nMore evidence is needed to investigate the effect of prophylactic antenatal corticosteroids on the incidence of recognised respiratory morbidity such as RDS. Any future trials should assess the balance between respiratory benefit and potential immediate adverse effects (e.g. hypoglycaemia) and long-term adverse effects (e.g. academic performance) for the infant. There is very limited information on maternal health outcomes to provide any assurances that corticosteroids do not pose any increased risk of harm to the mother.\nFurther research should consider investigating the effectiveness of antenatal steroids at different gestational ages prior to caesarean section. There are nine potentially eligible studies that are currently ongoing and could be included in future updates of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Caesarean section increases the risk of a term newborn developing breathing problems, such as rapid breathing over the first few days (known as transient tachypnoea of the neonate) and the more serious respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). The affected babies may need treatment in special care units. This risk decreases from 37 weeks to 39 weeks of gestation, at which stage it is low. Most caesarean sections are performed after 39 weeks of gestation, but there are some instances when babies need to be born earlier. The aim of this review was to investigate if corticosteroids can reduce the rates of breathing problems prior to caesarean section, without causing problems for the mother or the infant."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6427
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMedication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) is a severe adverse reaction experienced by some individuals to certain medicines commonly used in the treatment of cancer and osteoporosis (e.g. bisphosphonates, denosumab, and antiangiogenic agents), and involves the progressive destruction of bone in the mandible or maxilla. Depending on the drug, its dosage, and the duration of exposure, this adverse drug reaction may occur rarely (e.g. following the oral administration of bisphosphonate or denosumab treatments for osteoporosis, or antiangiogenic agent-targeted cancer treatment), or commonly (e.g. following intravenous bisphosphonate for cancer treatment). MRONJ is associated with significant morbidity, adversely affects quality of life (QoL), and is challenging to treat. This is an update of our review first published in 2017.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the prophylaxis of MRONJ in people exposed to antiresorptive or antiangiogenic drugs.\nTo assess the effects of non-surgical or surgical interventions (either singly or in combination) versus no treatment, placebo, or an active control for the treatment of people with manifest MRONJ.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health’s Information Specialist searched four bibliographic databases up to 16 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one modality of intervention with another for the prevention or treatment of MRONJ. For 'prophylaxis of MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was the incidence of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, time-to-event, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention. For 'treatment of established MRONJ', the primary outcome of interest was healing of MRONJ; secondary outcomes were QoL, recurrence, and rate of complications and side effects of the intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the search results, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported the risk ratio (RR) (or rate ratio) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nWe included 13 RCTs (1668 participants) in this updated review, of which eight were new additions. The studies were clinically diverse and examined very different interventions, so meta-analyses could not be performed.\nWe have low or very low certainty about available evidence on interventions for the prophylaxis or treatment of MRONJ.\nProphylaxis of MRONJ\nFive RCTs examined different interventions to prevent the occurrence of MRONJ.\nOne RCT compared standard care with regular dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments (including antibiotics before dental extractions and the use of techniques for wound closure that avoid exposure and contamination of bone) in men with metastatic prostate cancer treated with zoledronic acid. The intervention seemed to lower the risk of MRONJ (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39, 253 participants). Secondary outcomes were not evaluated.\nDentoalveolar surgery is considered a common predisposing event for developing MRONJ and five RCTs tested various preventive measures to reduce the risk of postoperative MRONJ. The studies evaluated plasma rich in growth factors inserted into the postextraction alveolus in addition to standardised medical and surgical care versus standardised medical and surgical care alone (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.51, 176 participants); delicate surgery and closure by primary intention versus non-traumatic tooth avulsion and closure by secondary intention (no case of postoperative MRONJ in either group); primary closure of the extraction socket with a mucoperiosteal flap versus application of platelet-rich fibrin without primary wound closure (no case of postoperative MRONJ in either group); and subperiosteal wound closure versus epiperiosteal wound closure (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.56, 132 participants).\nTreatment of MRONJ\nEight RCTs examined different interventions for the treatment of established MRONJ; that is, the effect on MRONJ cure rates.\nOne RCT analysed hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) treatment used in addition to standard care (antiseptic rinses, antibiotics, and surgery) compared with standard care alone (at last follow-up: RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.18, 46 participants).\nHealing rates from MRONJ were not significantly different between autofluorescence-guided bone surgery and conventional bone surgery (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.37, 30 participants). Another RCT that compared autofluorescence- with tetracycline fluorescence-guided sequestrectomy for the surgical treatment of MRONJ found no significant difference (at one-year follow-up: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30, 34 participants).\nThree RCTs investigated the effect of growth factors and autologous platelet concentrates on healing rates of MRONJ: platelet-rich fibrin after bone surgery versus surgery alone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22, 47 participants), bone morphogenetic protein-2 together with platelet-rich fibrin versus platelet-rich fibrin alone (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.29, 55 participants), and concentrated growth factor and primary wound closure versus primary wound closure only (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.34, 28 participants).\nTwo RCTs focused on pharmacological treatment with teriparatide: teriparatide 20 μg daily versus placebo in addition to standard care (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.95, 33 participants) and teriparatide 56.5 μg weekly versus teriparatide 20 μg daily in addition to standard care (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.44, 12 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nProphylaxis of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw\nOne open-label RCT provided some evidence that dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments may be more effective than standard care for reducing the incidence of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) in individuals taking intravenous bisphosphonates for advanced cancer. We assessed the certainty of the evidence to be very low.\nThere is insufficient evidence to either claim or refute a benefit of the interventions tested for prophylaxis of MRONJ in patients with antiresorptive therapy undergoing dentoalveolar surgery. Although some interventions suggested a potential large effect, the studies were underpowered to show statistical significance, and replication of the results in larger studies is pending.\nTreatment of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw\nThe available evidence is insufficient to either claim or refute a benefit, in addition to standard care, of any of the interventions studied for the treatment of MRONJ.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The certainty of evidence was low or very low. This was due to limitations in how the studies were designed and run. For example, some participants changed groups during the study, some participants did not finish the study, and the outcomes were measured at different follow-up times. In addition, most of the studies had only a small number of participants."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6428
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSuccessful treatments for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have the potential to improve health outcomes for women with GDM and their babies.\nObjectives\nTo provide a comprehensive synthesis of evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews of the benefits and harms associated with interventions for treating GDM on women and their babies.\nMethods\nWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (5 January 2018) for reviews of treatment/management for women with GDM. Reviews of pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes were excluded.\nTwo overview authors independently assessed reviews for inclusion, quality (AMSTAR; ROBIS), quality of evidence (GRADE), and extracted data.\nMain results\nWe included 14 reviews. Of these, 10 provided relevant high-quality and low-risk of bias data (AMSTAR and ROBIS) from 128 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 27 comparisons, 17,984 women, 16,305 babies, and 1441 children. Evidence ranged from high- to very low-quality (GRADE). Only one effective intervention was found for treating women with GDM.\nEffective\nLifestyle versus usual care\nLifestyle intervention versus usual care probably reduces large-for-gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.71; 6 RCTs, N = 2994; GRADE moderate-quality).\nPromising\nNo evidence for any outcome for any comparison could be classified to this category.\nIneffective or possibly harmful\nLifestyle versus usual care\nLifestyle intervention versus usual care probably increases the risk of induction of labour (IOL) suggesting possible harm (average RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.46; 4 RCTs, N = 2699; GRADE moderate-quality).\nExercise versus control\nExercise intervention versus control for return to pre-pregnancy weight suggested ineffectiveness (body mass index, BMI) MD 0.11 kg/m², 95% CI -1.04 to 1.26; 3 RCTs, N = 254; GRADE moderate-quality).\nInsulin versus oral therapy\nInsulin intervention versus oral therapy probably increases the risk of IOL suggesting possible harm (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.75; 3 RCTs, N = 348; GRADE moderate-quality).\nProbably ineffective or harmful interventions\nInsulin versus oral therapy\nFor insulin compared to oral therapy there is probably an increased risk of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.12; 4 RCTs, N = 1214; GRADE moderate-quality).\nInconclusive\nLifestyle versus usual care\nThe evidence for childhood adiposity kg/m² (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.11; 3 RCTs, N = 767; GRADE moderate-quality) and hypoglycaemia was inconclusive (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.52; 6 RCTs, N = 3000; GRADE moderate-quality).\nExercise versus control\nThe evidence for caesarean section (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.16; 5 RCTs, N = 316; GRADE moderate quality) and perinatal death or serious morbidity composite was inconclusive (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.61; 2 RCTs, N = 169; GRADE moderate-quality).\nInsulin versus oral therapy\nThe evidence for the following outcomes was inconclusive: pre-eclampsia (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.52; 10 RCTs, N = 2060), caesarean section (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; 17 RCTs, N = 1988), large-for-gestational age (average RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.35; 13 RCTs, N = 2352), and perinatal death or serious morbidity composite (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.26; 2 RCTs, N = 760). GRADE assessment was moderate-quality for these outcomes.\nInsulin versus diet\nThe evidence for perinatal mortality was inconclusive (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.33; 4 RCTs, N = 1137; GRADE moderate-quality).\nInsulin versus insulin\nThe evidence for insulin aspart versus lispro for risk of caesarean section was inconclusive (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; 3 RCTs, N = 410; GRADE moderate quality).\nNo conclusions possible\nNo conclusions were possible for: lifestyle versus usual care (perineal trauma, postnatal depression, neonatal adiposity, number of antenatal visits/admissions); diet versus control (pre-eclampsia, caesarean section); myo-inositol versus placebo (hypoglycaemia); metformin versus glibenclamide (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, pregnancy-induced hypertension, death or serious morbidity composite, insulin versus oral therapy (development of type 2 diabetes); intensive management versus routine care (IOL, large-for-gestational age); post- versus pre-prandial glucose monitoring (large-for-gestational age). The evidence ranged from moderate-, low- and very low-quality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently there is insufficient high-quality evidence about the effects on health outcomes of relevance for women with GDM and their babies for many of the comparisons in this overview comparing treatment interventions for women with GDM. Lifestyle changes (including as a minimum healthy eating, physical activity and self-monitoring of blood sugar levels) was the only intervention that showed possible health improvements for women and their babies. Lifestyle interventions may result in fewer babies being large. Conversely, in terms of harms, lifestyle interventions may also increase the number of inductions. Taking insulin was also associated with an increase in hypertensive disorders, when compared to oral therapy. There was very limited information on long-term health and health services costs. Further high-quality research is needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Exercise programmes\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Exercise programmes(including brisk walking, cycling, resistance circuit-type training, instruction on active lifestyle, home-based exercise programme, 6-week or 10-week exercise programme, yoga, etc.)\nSimilarly, there were not enough data on any specific exercise regimen to say if it helped or not."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6429
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCataract surgery is the most common incisional surgical procedure in ophthalmology and is important in ophthalmic graduate medical education. Although most ophthalmology training programs in the United States (US) include virtual reality (VR) training for cataract surgery, comprehensive reviews that detail the impact of VR training on ophthalmology trainee performance are lacking.\nObjectives\nTo assess the impact of VR training for cataract surgery on the operating performance of postgraduate ophthalmology trainees, measured by operating time, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, supervising physician ratings, and VR simulator task ratings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com, PubMed, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 14 June 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VR training to any other method of training, including non-VR simulation training (e.g., wet laboratory training), didactics training, or no supplementary training in postgraduate ophthalmology trainees.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology. Primary outcomes were operating times in the operating room and intraoperative complications. Secondary outcomes were operating times in simulated settings, simulator task ratings, and supervising physician ratings, either in the operating room or simulated settings.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs with a total of 151 postgraduate ophthalmology trainees ranging from 12 to 60 participants in each study. The included studies varied widely in terms of geography: two in the US, and one study each in China, Germany, India, and Morocco. Three studies compared VR training for phacoemulsification cataract surgery on the Eyesi simulator (VRmagic, Mannheim, Germany) with wet laboratory training and two studies compared VR training with no supplementary training. One study compared trainees who received VR training with those who received conventional training for manual small incision cataract surgery on the HelpMeSee simulator (HelpMeSee, New York, NY). Industry financially supported two studies. All studies had at least three domains judged at high or unclear risks of bias. We did not conduct a meta-analysis due to insufficient data (i.e., lack of precision measurements, or studies reported only P values). All evidence was very low-certainty, meaning that any estimates were unreliable.\nThe evidence for the benefits of VR training for trainees was very uncertain for primary outcomes. VR-trained trainees relative to those without supplementary training had shorter operating times (mean difference [MD] −17 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] −21.62 to −12.38; 1 study, n = 12; very low-certainty evidence). Results for operating time were inconsistent when comparing VR and wet laboratory training: one study found that VR relative to wet laboratory training was associated with longer operating times (P = 0.038); the other reported that two training groups had similar operating times (P = 0.14). One study reported that VR-trained trainees relative to those without supplementary training had fewer intraoperative complications (P < 0.001); in another study, VR and conventionally trained trainees had similar intraoperative complication rates (MD −8.31, 95% CI −22.78 to 6.16; 1 study, n = 19; very low-certainty evidence).\nFor secondary outcomes, VR training may have similar impact on trainee performance compared to wet laboratory and greater impact compared to no supplementary training, but the evidence was very uncertain. One study reported VR-trained trainees relative to those without supplementary training had significantly reduced operating time in simulated settings (P = 0.0013). Another study reported that VR-trained relative to wet laboratory-trained trainees had shorter operating times in VR settings (MD −1.40 minutes, 95% CI −1.96 to −0.84; 1 study, n = 60) and similar times in wet laboratory settings (MD 0.16 minutes, 95% CI −0.50 to 0.82; 1 study, n = 60). This study also found the VR-trained trainees had higher VR simulator ratings (MD 5.17, 95% CI 0.61 to 9.73; 1 study, n = 60). Results for supervising physician ratings in the operating room were inconsistent: one study reported that VR- and wet laboratory-trained trainees received similar supervising physician ratings for cataract surgery (P = 0.608); another study reported that VR-trained trainees relative to those without supplementary training were less likely to receive poor ratings by supervising physicians for capsulorhexis construction (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.57). In wet laboratory settings, VR-trained trainees received similar supervising physician ratings compared with wet laboratory-trained trainees (MD −1.50, 95% CI −6.77 to 3.77; n = 60) and higher supervising physician ratings compared with trainees without supplementary training (P < 0.0001). However, the results for all secondary outcomes should be interpreted with caution because of very low-certainty evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent research suggests that VR training may be more effective than no supplementary training in improving trainee performance in the operating room and simulated settings for postgraduate ophthalmology trainees, but the evidence is uncertain. The evidence comparing VR with conventional or wet laboratory training was less consistent.\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": "VR training is a promising intervention for teaching cataract surgery, but more rigorous, evidence-based studies are needed to gauge its impact on key outcomes such as intraoperative and postoperative complications."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6430
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis review represents one from a family of three reviews focusing on interventions for drug-using offenders. Many people under the care of the criminal justice system have co-occurring mental health problems and drug misuse problems; it is important to identify the most effective treatments for this vulnerable population.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems in reducing criminal activity or drug use, or both.\nThis review addresses the following questions.\n• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce drug use?\n• Does any treatment for drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems reduce criminal activity?\n• Does the treatment setting (court, community, prison/secure establishment) affect intervention outcome(s)?\n• Does the type of treatment affect treatment outcome(s)?\nSearch methods\nWe searched 12 databases up to February 2019 and checked the reference lists of included studies. We contacted experts in the field for further information.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials designed to prevent relapse of drug use and/or criminal activity among drug-using offenders with co-occurring mental health problems.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane .\nMain results\nWe included 13 studies with a total of 2606 participants. Interventions were delivered in prison (eight studies; 61%), in court (two studies; 15%), in the community (two studies; 15%), or at a medium secure hospital (one study; 8%). Main sources of bias were unclear risk of selection bias and high risk of detection bias.\nFour studies compared a therapeutic community intervention versus (1) treatment as usual (two studies; 266 participants), providing moderate-certainty evidence that participants who received the intervention were less likely to be involved in subsequent criminal activity (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.84) or returned to prison (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.67); (2) a cognitive-behavioural therapy (one study; 314 participants), reporting no significant reduction in self-reported drug use (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.32), re-arrest for any type of crime (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09), criminal activity (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.05), or drug-related crime (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.36), yielding low-certainty evidence; and (3) a waiting list control (one study; 478 participants), showing a significant reduction in return to prison for those people engaging in the therapeutic community (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.79), providing moderate-certainty evidence.\nOne study (235 participants) compared a mental health treatment court with an assertive case management model versus treatment as usual, showing no significant reduction at 12 months' follow-up on an Addictive Severity Index (ASI) self-report of drug use (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03), conviction for a new crime (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22), or re-incarceration to jail (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01), providing low-certainty evidence.\nFour studies compared motivational interviewing/mindfulness and cognitive skills with relaxation therapy (one study), a waiting list control (one study), or treatment as usual (two studies). In comparison to relaxation training, one study reported narrative information on marijuana use at three-month follow-up assessment. Researchers reported a main effect < .007 with participants in the motivational interviewing group, showing fewer problems than participants in the relaxation training group, with moderate-certainty evidence. In comparison to a waiting list control, one study reported no significant reduction in self-reported drug use based on the ASI (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.29) and on abstinence from drug use (RR 2.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 11.43), presenting low-certainty evidence at six months (31 participants). In comparison to treatment as usual, two studies (with 40 participants) found no significant reduction in frequency of marijuana use at three months post release (MD -1.05, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.29) nor time to first arrest (MD 0.87, 95% CI -0.12 to 1.86), along with a small reduction in frequency of re-arrest (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.01) up to 36 months, yielding low-certainty evidence; the other study with 80 participants found no significant reduction in positive drug screens at 12 months (MD -0.7, 95% CI -3.5 to 2.1), providing very low-certainty evidence.\nTwo studies reported on the use of multi-systemic therapy involving juveniles and families versus treatment as usual and adolescent substance abuse therapy. In comparing treatment as usual, researchers found no significant reduction up to seven months in drug dependence on the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) score (MD -0.22, 95% CI -2.51 to 2.07) nor in arrests (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36), providing low-certainty evidence (156 participants). In comparison to an adolescent substance abuse therapy, one study (112 participants) found significant reduction in re-arrests up to 24 months (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.28), based on low-certainty evidence.\nOne study (38 participants) reported on the use of interpersonal psychotherapy in comparison to a psychoeducational intervention. Investigators found no significant reduction in self-reported drug use at three months (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50), providing very low-certainty evidence. The final study (29 participants) compared legal defence service and wrap-around social work services versus legal defence service only and found no significant reductions in the number of new offences committed at 12 months (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.07 to 6.01), yielding very low-certainty evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTherapeutic community interventions and mental health treatment courts may help people to reduce subsequent drug use and/or criminal activity. For other interventions such as interpersonal psychotherapy, multi-systemic therapy, legal defence wrap-around services, and motivational interviewing, the evidence is more uncertain. Studies showed a high degree of variation, warranting a degree of caution in interpreting the magnitude of effect and the direction of benefit for treatment outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Therapies identified to support criminal justice involved people with mental health and drug misuse problems."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6431
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLumbar puncture is a common invasive procedure performed in newborns for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Approximately one in two lumbar punctures fail, resulting in both short- and long-term negative consequences for the clinical management of patients. The most common positions used to perform lumbar puncture are the lateral decubitus and sitting position, and each can impact the success rate and safety of the procedure. However, it is uncertain which position best improves patient outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of the lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone positions for lumbar puncture in newborn infants.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 24 January 2023.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs involving newborn infants of postmenstrual age up to 46 weeks and 0 days, undergoing lumbar puncture for any indication, comparing different positions (i.e. lateral decubitus, sitting, and prone position) during the procedure.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our primary outcomes were successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt; total number of lumbar puncture attempts; and episodes of bradycardia. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included five studies with 1476 participants.\nCompared to sitting position: lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at the first attempt (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; RD −0.04, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.01; I2 = 70% and 72% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 1249 infants, low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts. Lateral decubitus position likely increases episodes of bradycardia (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.76; RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.05; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 33; I2 = not applicable and 69% for RR and RD, respectively; 3 studies, 1279 infants, moderate-certainty evidence) and oxygen desaturation (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.08; RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.09; NNTH = 17; I2 = not applicable and 96% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 1249 infants, moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of lateral decubitus position on time to perform the lumbar puncture (MD 2.00, 95% CI −4.98 to 8.98; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 20 infants, very low-certainty evidence). Lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in the number of episodes of apnea during the procedure (RR not estimable; RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.03; I2 = not applicable and 0% for RR and RD, respectively; 2 studies, 197 infants, low-certainty evidence). No studies reported apnea defined as number of infants with one or more episodes during the procedure.\nCompared to prone position: lateral decubitus position may reduce successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; RD −0.21, 95% CI −0.34 to −0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome = 5; I2 = not applicable; 1 study, 171 infants, low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts or episodes of apnea. Pain intensity during and after the procedure was reported using a non-validated pain scale. None of the studies comparing lateral decubitus versus prone position reported the other critical outcomes of this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen compared to sitting position, lateral decubitus position may result in little to no difference in successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. None of the included studies reported the total number of lumbar puncture attempts. Furthermore, infants in a lateral decubitus position likely experience more episodes of bradycardia and oxygen desaturation, and there may be little to no difference in episodes of apnea. The evidence is very uncertain regarding time to perform lumbar puncture. Pain intensity during and after the procedure was reported using a pain scale that was not included in our prespecified tools for pain assessment due to its high risk of bias. Most study participants were term newborns, thereby limiting the applicability of these results to preterm babies.\nWhen compared to prone position, lateral decubitus position may reduce successful lumbar puncture procedure at first attempt. Only one study reported on this comparison and did not evaluate adverse effects.\nFurther research exploring harms and benefits and the effect on patients' pain experience of different positions during lumbar puncture using validated pain scoring tool may increase the level of confidence in our conclusions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Our confidence in our findings is limited because of the low number of studies examining each question for each comparison; moreover, some of the studies used methods likely to introduce errors in their results. In some studies, the investigators may have been aware of which position was used. Furthermore, none of the studies provided data on all the outcomes we aimed to explore, and the differences reported between groups were often quite small."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6432
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCardiogenic shock (CS) and low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) are potentially life-threatening complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or cardiac surgery. While there is solid evidence for the treatment of other cardiovascular diseases of acute onset, treatment strategies in haemodynamic instability due to CS and LCOS remains less robustly supported by the given scientific literature. Therefore, we have analysed the current body of evidence for the treatment of CS or LCOS with inotropic and/or vasodilating agents. This is the second update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2014.\nObjectives\nAssessment of efficacy and safety of cardiac care with positive inotropic agents and vasodilator agents in CS or LCOS due to AMI, HF or after cardiac surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted a search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CPCI-S Web of Science in October 2019. We also searched four registers of ongoing trials and scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. No language restrictions were applied.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients with AMI, HF or cardiac surgery complicated by CS or LCOS.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane standards.\nMain results\nWe identified 19 eligible studies including 2385 individuals (mean or median age range 56 to 73 years) and three ongoing studies. We categorised studies into 11 comparisons, all against standard cardiac care and additional other drugs or placebo. These comparisons investigated the efficacy of levosimendan versus dobutamine, enoximone or placebo; enoximone versus dobutamine, piroximone or epinephrine-nitroglycerine; epinephrine versus norepinephrine or norepinephrine-dobutamine; dopexamine versus dopamine; milrinone versus dobutamine and dopamine-milrinone versus dopamine-dobutamine.\nAll trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, and analyses were done by the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. Eighteen of 19 trials were small with only a few included participants. An acknowledgement of funding by the pharmaceutical industry or missing conflict of interest statements occurred in nine of 19 trials. In general, confidence in the results of analysed studies was reduced due to relevant study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision or indirectness. Domains of concern, which showed a high risk in more than 50% of included studies, encompassed performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) and bias affecting the quality of evidence on adverse events.\nAll comparisons revealed uncertainty on the effect of inotropic/vasodilating drugs on all-cause mortality with a low to very low quality of evidence. In detail, the findings were: levosimendan versus dobutamine (short-term mortality: RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.03; participants = 1701; low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.13; participants = 1591; low-quality evidence); levosimendan versus placebo (short-term mortality: no data available; long-term mortality: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.90; participants = 55; very low-quality evidence); levosimendan versus enoximone (short-term mortality: RR 0.50, 0.22 to 1.14; participants = 32; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); epinephrine versus norepinephrine-dobutamine (short-term mortality: RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.41 to 3.77; participants = 30; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); dopexamine versus dopamine (short-term mortality: no deaths in either intervention arm; participants = 70; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); enoximone versus dobutamine (short-term mortality RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.01 to 4.11; participants = 27; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); epinephrine versus norepinephrine (short-term mortality: RR 1.81, 0.89 to 3.68; participants = 57; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available); and dopamine-milrinone versus dopamine-dobutamine (short-term mortality: RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.93; participants = 20; very low-quality evidence; long-term mortality: no data available). No information regarding all-cause mortality were available for the comparisons milrinone versus dobutamine, enoximone versus piroximone and enoximone versus epinephrine-nitroglycerine.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt present, there are no convincing data supporting any specific inotropic or vasodilating therapy to reduce mortality in haemodynamically unstable patients with CS or LCOS.\nConsidering the limited evidence derived from the present data due to a high risk of bias and imprecision, it should be emphasised that there is an unmet need for large-scale, well-designed randomised trials on this topic to close the gap between daily practice in critical care of cardiovascular patients and the available evidence. In light of the uncertainties in the field, partially due to the underlying methodological flaws in existing studies, future RCTs should be carefully designed to potentially overcome given limitations and ultimately define the role of inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies in CS and LCOS.\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 studies with 2385 participants with CS or LCOS complicating myocardial infarction, heart failure or cardiac surgery. The follow-up periods of the studies varied between the length of the recovery period and a period of up to 12 months. Eight studies were funded by the manufacturer of the investigated drug. In one study, the relationship to the pharmaceutical industry was not determined."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6433
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMinor oral surgery or dental extractions (oral or dental procedures) are widely performed and can be complicated by hazardous oral bleeding, especially in people with an inherited bleeding disorder such as haemophilia or Von Willebrand disease (VWD). The amount and severity of singular bleedings depend on disease-related factors, such as the severity of the haemophilia, both local and systemic patient factors (such as periodontal inflammation, vasculopathy or platelet dysfunction) and intervention-related factors (such as the type and number of teeth extracted or the dimension of the wound surface). Similar to local haemostatic measures and suturing, antifibrinolytic therapy is a cheap, safe and potentially effective treatment to prevent bleeding complications in individuals with bleeding disorders undergoing oral or dental procedures. However, a systematic review of trials reporting outcomes after oral surgery or a dental procedure in people with an inherited bleeding disorder, with or without, the use of antifibrinolytic agents has not been performed to date. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nPrimarily, we aim to assess the efficacy of antifibrinolytic agents to prevent bleeding complications in people with haemophilia or VWD undergoing oral or dental procedures.\nSecondary objectives are to assess if antifibrinolytic agents can replace or reduce the need for clotting factor concentrate therapy in people with haemophilia or VWD and to establish the effects of these agents on bleeding in oral or dental procedures for each of these patient populations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), of MEDLINE and from handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We additionally searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and the Cochrane Library. Additional searches were performed in ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).\nDate of last search of the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 01 March 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people with haemophilia or VWD undergoing oral or dental procedures using antifibrinolytic agents (tranexamic acid or epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA)) to prevent perioperative bleeding compared to no intervention or usual care with or without placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of all identified articles. Full texts were obtained for potentially relevant abstracts and two authors independently assessed these for inclusion based on the selection criteria. A third author verified trial eligibility. Two authors independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments using standardised forms.\nMain results\nWhile there were no eligible trials in people with VWD identified, two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (total of 59 participants) in people with haemophilia undergoing dental extraction were included. One trial of tranexamic acid published in 1972 included 28 participants with mild, moderate or severe haemophilia A and B and one of EACA published in 1971 included 31 people with haemophilia with factor VIII or factor IX levels less than 15%. Overall, the two included trials showed a beneficial effect of tranexamic acid and EACA, administered systemically, in reducing the number of bleedings, the amount of blood loss and the need for therapeutic clotting factor concentrates. Regarding postoperative bleeding, the tranexamic acid trial showed a risk difference (RD) of -0.64 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.93 to - 0.36) and the EACA trial a RD of -0.50 (95% CI 0.77 to -0.22). The combined RD of both trials was -0.57 (95% CI -0.76 to -0.37), with the quality of the evidence (GRADE) for this outcome is rated as moderate. Side effects occurred once and required stopping EACA (combined RD of -0.03 (95% CI -0.08 to 0.13). There was heterogeneity between the two trials regarding the proportion of people with severe haemophilia included, the concomitant standard therapy and fibrinolytic agent treatment regimens used. We cannot exclude that a selection bias has occurred in the EACA trial, but overall the risk of bias appeared to be low for both trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite the discovery of a beneficial effect of systemically administered tranexamic acid and EACA in preventing postoperative bleeding in people with haemophilia undergoing dental extraction, the limited number of randomised controlled trials identified, in combination with the small sample sizes and heterogeneity regarding standard therapy and treatment regimens between the two trials, do not allow us to conclude definite efficacy of antifibrinolytic therapy in oral or dental procedures in people with haemophilia. No trials were identified in people with VWD.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We reviewed the evidence about whether antifibrinolytic medicine (drugs that promote blood clotting) such as tranexamic acid or epsilon aminocaproic acid, can prevent oral bleeding in people with haemophilia or Von Willebrand disease undergoing minor oral surgery or dental extractions. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6434
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBipolar disorder is one of the most common serious mental illnesses, affecting approximately 60 million people worldwide. Characterised by extreme alterations in mood, cognition, and behaviour, bipolar disorder can have a significant negative impact on the functioning and quality of life of the affected individual. Compared with the general population, the prevalence of comorbid obesity is significantly higher in bipolar disorder. Approximately 68% of treatment seeking bipolar patients are overweight or obese. Clinicians are aware that obesity has the potential to contribute to other physical health conditions in people with bipolar disorder, including diabetes, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and coronary heart disease. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of premature death in bipolar disorder, happening a decade or more earlier than in the general population. Contributing factors include illness-related factors (mood-related factors, i.e. mania or depression), treatment-related factors (weight implications and other side effects of medications), and lifestyle factors (physical inactivity, poor diet, smoking, substance abuse). Approaches to the management of obesity in individuals with bipolar disorder are diverse and include non-pharmacological interventions (i.e. dietary, exercise, behavioural, or multi-component), pharmacological interventions (i.e. weight loss drugs or medication switching), and bariatric surgery.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of interventions for the management of obesity in people with bipolar disorder.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to February 2019. We ran additional searches via Ovid databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo to May 2020. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also checked the reference lists of all papers brought to full-text stage and all relevant systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), randomised at the level of the individual or cluster, and cross-over designs of interventions for management of obesity, in which at least 80% of study participants had a clinical diagnosis of bipolar disorder and comorbid obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m²), were eligible for inclusion. No exclusions were based on type of bipolar disorder, stage of illness, age, or gender. We included non-pharmacological interventions comprising dietary, exercise, behavioural, and multi-component interventions; pharmacological interventions consisting of weight loss medications and medication switching interventions; and surgical interventions such as gastric bypass, gastric bands, biliopancreatic diversion, and vertical banded gastroplasty. Comparators included the following approaches: dietary intervention versus inactive comparator; exercise intervention versus inactive comparator; behavioural intervention versus inactive comparator; multi-component lifestyle intervention versus inactive comparator; medication switching intervention versus inactive comparator; weight loss medication intervention versus inactive comparator; and surgical intervention versus inactive comparator. Primary outcomes of interest were changes in body mass, patient-reported adverse events, and quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nFour review authors were involved in the process of selecting studies. Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of studies identified in the search. Studies brought to the full-text stage were then screened by another two review authors working independently. However, none of the full-text studies met the inclusion criteria. Had we included studies, we would have assessed their methodological quality by using the criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We intended to combine dichotomous data using risk ratios (RRs), and continuous data using mean differences (MDs). For each outcome, we intended to calculate overall effect size with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nNone of the studies that were screened met the inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNone of the studies that were assessed met the inclusion criteria of this review. Therefore we were unable to determine the effectiveness of interventions for the management of obesity in individuals with bipolar disorder. Given the extent and impact of the problem and the absence of evidence, this review highlights the need for research in this area. We suggest the need for RCTs that will focus only on populations with bipolar disorder and comorbid obesity. We identified several ongoing studies that may be included in the update of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Implications for practice\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Findings from this review suggest that there is no evidence to support non-pharmacological, pharmacological, or surgical approaches for the management of obesity in bipolar disorder."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6435
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPharmacological interventions for disordered and problem gambling have been employed in clinical practice. Despite the availability of several reviews of the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for disordered or problem gambling, few have employed systematic search strategies or compared different categories of pharmacological interventions. Systematic reviews of high-quality evidence are therefore essential to provide guidance regarding the efficacy of different pharmacological interventions for disordered or problem gambling.\nObjectives\nThe primary aims of the review were to: (1) examine the efficacy of major categories of pharmacological-only interventions (antidepressants, opioid antagonists, mood stabilisers, atypical antipsychotics) for disordered or problem gambling, relative to placebo control conditions; and (2) examine the efficacy of these major categories relative to each other.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (all years to 11 January 2022).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials evaluating a pharmacological intervention for the treatment of disordered or problem gambling. Eligible control conditions included placebo control groups or comparisons with another category of pharmacological intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures, including systematic extraction of included study characteristics and results and risk of bias assessment. Our primary outcome was reduction in gambling symptom severity. Our secondary outcomes were reduction in gambling expenditure, gambling frequency, time spent gambling, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and functional impairment; and responder status. We evaluated treatment effects for continuous and dichotomous outcomes using standardised mean difference (SMD) and risk ratios (RR), respectively, employing random-effects meta-analyses. A minimum of two independent treatment effects were required for a meta-analysis to be conducted (with only meta-analytic findings reported in this abstract).\nMain results\nWe included 17 studies in the review (n = 1193 randomised) that reported outcome data scheduled for end of treatment. Length of treatment ranged from 7 to 96 weeks.\nAntidepressants: Six studies (n = 268) evaluated antidepressants, with very low to low certainty evidence suggesting that antidepressants were no more effective than placebo at post-treatment: gambling symptom severity (SMD −0.32, 95% CI −0.74 to 0.09, n = 225), gambling expenditure (SMD −0.27, 95% CI −0.60 to 0.06, n = 144), depressive symptoms (SMD −0.19, 95% CI −0.60 to 0.23, n = 90), functional impairment (SMD −0.15, 95% CI −0.53 to 0.22, n = 110), and responder status (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.66, n = 268).\nOpioid antagonists: Four studies (n = 562) evaluated opioid antagonists, with very low to low certainty evidence showing a medium beneficial effect of treatment on gambling symptom severity relative to placebo at post-treatment (SMD −0.46, 95% CI −0.74 to −0.19, n = 259), but no difference between groups in responder status (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.86 to 3.14, n = 562).\nMood stabilisers: Two studies (n = 71) evaluated mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants), with very low certainty evidence suggesting that mood stabilisers were no more effective than placebo at post-treatment: gambling symptom severity (SMD −0.92, 95% CI −2.24 to 0.39, n = 71), depressive symptoms (SMD −0.15, 95% CI −1.14 to 0.83, n = 71), and anxiety symptoms (SMD −0.17, 95% CI −0.64 to 0.30, n = 71).\nAtypical antipsychotics: Two studies (n = 63) evaluated the atypical antipsychotic olanzapine, with very low certainty evidence showing a medium beneficial effect of treatment on gambling symptom severity relative to placebo at post-treatment (SMD −0.59, 95% CI −1.10 to −0.08, n = 63).\nComparative effectiveness: Two studies (n = 62) compared antidepressants with opioid antagonists, with very low certainty evidence indicating that antidepressants were no more effective than opioid antagonists on depressive symptoms (SMD 0.22, 95% CI −0.29 to 0.72, n = 62) or anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.21, 95% CI −0.29 to 0.72, n = 62) at post-treatment. Two studies (n = 58) compared antidepressants with mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants), with very low certainty evidence indicating that antidepressants were no more effective than mood stabilisers on depressive symptoms (SMD 0.02, 95% CI −0.53 to 0.56, n = 58) or anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.16, 95% CI −0.39 to 0.70, n = 58) at post-treatment.\nTolerability and adverse events: Several common adverse effects were reported by participants receiving antidepressants (e.g. headaches, nausea, diarrhoea/gastrointestinal issues) and opioid antagonists (e.g. nausea, dry mouth, constipation). There was little consistency in the types of adverse effects experienced by participants receiving mood stabilisers (e.g. tiredness, headaches, concentration difficulties) or atypical antipsychotics (e.g. pneumonia, sedation, increased hypomania). Discontinuation of treatment due to these adverse events was highest for opioid antagonists (10% to 32%), followed by antidepressants (4% to 31%), atypical antipsychotics (14%), and mood stabilisers (13%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review provides preliminary support for the use of opioid antagonists (naltrexone, nalmefene) and atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine) to produce short-term improvements in gambling symptom severity, although a lack of available evidence precludes a conclusion regarding the degree to which these pharmacological agents can improve other gambling or psychological functioning indices. In contrast, the findings are inconclusive with regard to the effects of mood stabilisers (including anticonvulsants) in the treatment of disordered or problem gambling, and there is limited evidence to support the efficacy of antidepressants. However, these conclusions are based on very low to low certainty evidence characterised by a small number of included studies, high risk of bias, modest pooled sample sizes, imprecise estimates, moderate between-study heterogeneity, and exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidities. Moreover, there were insufficient studies to conduct meta-analyses on many outcome measures; to compare efficacy across and within major categories of interventions; to explore dosage effects; or to examine effects beyond post-treatment. These limitations suggest that, despite recommendations related to the administration of opioid antagonists in the treatment of disordered or problem gambling, pharmacological interventions should be administered with caution and with careful consideration of patient needs. A larger and more methodologically rigorous evidence base with longer-term evaluation periods is required before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness and durability of pharmacological treatments for disordered or problem gambling.\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 trials (gold-standard trials for evaluating the effectiveness of treatments where participants are randomly assigned to one of two or more treatments) published before January 2022. We included 17 studies in the review with a total of 1193 participants. These studies compared antidepressants (medications used to prevent or treat depression), opioid antagonists (medications that reverse and block the effects of opioids like pain relievers and heroin; e.g., naltrexone, nalmefene), mood stabilisers (medications that treat and prevent highs (mania) and lows (depression)), and atypical antipsychotics (medications used to treat schizophrenia or to help treat other psychiatric disorders) with either a no-treatment control group (i.e. placebo) or with each other. We explored the effectiveness of these treatments on a range of outcomes: gambling symptom severity, gambling expenditure, gambling frequency, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, functional impairment (limitations due to the illness), and responder status (i.e. positive response to treatment based on gambling symptoms or behaviour, or both)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6436
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVaginal atrophy is a frequent complaint of postmenopausal women; symptoms include vaginal dryness, itching, discomfort and painful intercourse. Systemic treatment for these symptoms in the form of oral hormone replacement therapy is not always necessary. An alternative choice is oestrogenic preparations administered vaginally (in the form of creams, pessaries, tablets and the oestradiol-releasing ring). This is an update of a Chochrane systematic review; the original version was first published in October 2006.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to compare the efficacy and safety of intra-vaginal oestrogenic preparations in relieving the symptoms of vaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases and trials registers to April 2016: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Register of trials, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016 issue 4), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, DARE, the Web of Knowledge, OpenGrey, LILACS, PubMed and reference lists of articles. We also contacted experts and researchers in the field.\nSelection criteria\nThe inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of oestrogenic preparations administered intravaginally in postmenopausal women for at least 12 weeks for the treatment of symptoms resulting from vaginal atrophy or vaginitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data. The primary review outcomes were improvement in symptoms (participant-assessed), and the adverse event endometrial thickness. Secondary outcomes were improvement in symptoms (clinician-assessed), other adverse events (breast disorders e.g. breast pain, enlargement or engorgement, total adverse events, excluding breast disorders) and adherence to treatment. We combined data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) (dichotomous outcomes) and mean differences (MDs) (continuous outcomes) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe included 30 RCTs (6235 women) comparing different intra-vaginal oestrogenic preparations with each other and with placebo. The evidence was low to moderate quality; limitations were poor reporting of study methods and serious imprecision (effect estimates with wide confidence intervals)\n1. Oestrogen ring versus other regimens\nOther regimens included oestrogen cream, oestrogen tablets and placebo. There was no evidence of a difference in improvement in symptoms (participant assessment) either between oestrogen ring and oestrogen cream (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.19, two RCTs, n = 341, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or between oestrogen ring and oestrogen tablets (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.15, three RCTs, n = 567, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). However, a higher proportion of women reported improvement in symptoms following treatment with oestrogen ring compared with placebo (OR 12.67, 95% CI 3.23 to 49.66, one RCT, n = 67). With respect to endometrial thickness, a higher proportion of women who received oestrogen cream showed evidence of increase in endometrial thickness compared to those who were treated with oestrogen ring (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.94, two RCTs, n = 273; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). This may have been due to the higher doses of cream used.\n2. Oestrogen tablets versus other regimens\nOther regimens in this comparison included oestrogen cream, and placebo. There was no evidence of a difference in the proportions of women who reported improvement in symptoms between oestrogen tablets and oestrogen cream (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.01, two RCTs, n = 208, I2 = 0% low-quality evidence). A higher proportion of women who were treated with oestrogen tablets reported improvement in symptoms compared to those who received placebo using a fixed-effect model (OR 12.47, 95% CI 9.81 to 15.84, two RCTs, n = 1638, I2 = 83%, low-quality evidence); however, using a random-effect model did not demonstrate any evidence of a difference in the proportions of women who reported improvement between the two treatment groups (OR 5.80, 95% CI 0.88 to 38.29). There was no evidence of a difference in the proportions of women with increase in endometrial thickness between oestrogen tablets and oestrogen cream (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.60, two RCTs, n = 151, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).\n3. Oestrogen cream versus other regimens\nOther regimens identified in this comparison included isoflavone gel and placebo. There was no evidence of a difference in the proportions of women with improvement in symptoms between oestrogen cream and isoflavone gel (OR 2.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 53.76, one RCT, n = 50, low-quality evidence). However, there was evidence of a difference in the proportions of women with improvement in symptoms between oestrogen cream and placebo with more women who received oestrogen cream reporting improvement in symptoms compared to those who were treated with placebo (OR 4.10, 95% CI 1.88 to 8.93, two RCTs, n = 198, I2 = 50%, low-quality evidence). None of the included studies in this comparison reported data on endometrial thickness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between the various intravaginal oestrogenic preparations when compared with each other. However, there was low-quality evidence that intra-vaginal oestrogenic preparations improve the symptoms of vaginal atrophy in postmenopausal women when compared to placebo. There was low-quality evidence that oestrogen cream may be associated with an increase in endometrial thickness compared to oestrogen ring; this may have been due to the higher doses of cream used. However there was no evidence of a difference in the overall body of evidence in adverse events between the various oestrogenic preparations compared with each other or with placebo.\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": "Vaginal atrophy is a common condition in women after menopause. It causes vaginal dryness and itching and can make intercourse painful. The female hormone oestrogen is a treatment option for vaginal atrophy, but can cause adverse effects such as increased thickness in the lining of the womb (endometrium) which could be due to endometrial hyperplasia or cancer (resulting in vaginal bleeding) and breast tenderness. Oestrogen is available as an oral tablet, skin patch or implant under the skin. Alternatively, women can apply the hormone locally using creams, pessaries (tablets placed in the vagina) or a hormone-releasing ring placed in the vagina. There is, therefore, the need to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these locally-administered oestrogenic preparations."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6437
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIncreased intracranial pressure has been shown to be strongly associated with poor neurological outcomes and mortality for patients with acute traumatic brain injury. Currently, most efforts to treat these injuries focus on controlling the intracranial pressure. Hypertonic saline is a hyperosmolar therapy that is used in traumatic brain injury to reduce intracranial pressure. The effectiveness of hypertonic saline compared with other intracranial pressure-lowering agents in the management of acute traumatic brain injury is still debated, both in the short and the long term.\nObjectives\nTo assess the comparative efficacy and safety of hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents in the management of acute traumatic brain injury.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Injuries' Specialised Register, CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Classic+Embase, ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, as well as trials registers, on 11 December 2019. We supplemented these searches with searches of four major Chinese databases on 19 September 2018. We also checked bibliographies, and contacted trial authors to identify additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hypertonic saline versus other intracranial pressure-lowering agents for people with acute traumatic brain injury of any severity. We excluded cross-over trials as incompatible with assessing long-term outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened search results to identify potentially eligible trials and extracted data using a standard data extraction form. Outcome measures included: mortality at end of follow-up (all-cause); death or disability (as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS)); uncontrolled intracranial pressure (defined as failure to decrease the intracranial pressure to target and/or requiring additional intervention); and adverse events e.g. rebound phenomena; pulmonary oedema; acute renal failure during treatment).\nMain results\nSix trials, involving data from 287 people, met the inclusion criteria. The majority of participants (91%) had a diagnosis of severe traumatic brain injury. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial, as physicians were not reliably blinded to allocation, two trials contained participants with conditions other than traumatic brain injury and in one trial, we had concerns about missing data for important outcomes. The original protocol was available for only one trial and other trials (where registered) were registered retrospectively.\nMeta-analysis for both the primary outcome (mortality at final follow-up) and for 'poor outcome' as per conventionally dichotomised GOS criteria, was only possible for two trials. Synthesis of long-term outcomes was inhibited by the fact that two trials ceased data collection within two hours of a single bolus dose of an intracranial pressure-lowering agent and one at discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU). Only three trials collected data after participants were released from hospital, one of which did not report mortality and reported a 'poor outcome' by GOS criteria in an unconventional way. Substantial missing data in a key trial meant that in meta-analysis we report 'best-case' and 'worst-case' estimates alongside available case analysis. In no scenario did we discern a clear difference between treatments for either mortality or poor neurological outcome.\nDue to variation in modes of drug administration (including whether it followed or did not follow cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage, as well as different follow-up times and ways of reporting changes in intracranial pressure, as well as no uniform definition of 'uncontrolled intracranial pressure', we did not perform meta-analysis for this outcome and report results narratively, by individual trial. Trials tended to report both treatments to be effective in reducing elevated intracranial pressure but that hypertonic saline had increased benefits, usually adding that pretreatment factors need to be considered (e.g. serum sodium and both system and brain haemodynamics). No trial provided data for our other outcomes of interest. We consider evidence quality for all outcomes to be very low, as assessed by GRADE; we downgraded all conclusions due to imprecision (small sample size), indirectness (due to choice of measurement and/or selection of participants without traumatic brain injury), and in some cases, risk of bias and inconsistency.\nOnly one of the included trials reported data on adverse effects; a rebound phenomenon, which was present only in the comparator group (mannitol). None of the trials reported data on pulmonary oedema or acute renal failure during treatment. On the whole, trial authors do not seem to have rigorously sought to collect data on adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review set out to find trials comparing hypertonic saline to a potential range of other intracranial pressure-lowering agents, but only identified trials comparing it with mannitol or mannitol in combination with glycerol. Based on limited data, there is weak evidence to suggest that hypertonic saline is no better than mannitol in efficacy and safety in the long-term management of acute traumatic brain injury. Future research should be comprised of large, multi-site trials, prospectively registered, reported in accordance with current best practice. Trials should investigate issues such as the type of traumatic brain injury suffered by participants and concentration of infusion and length of time over which the infusion is given.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We reviewed the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of infusions (where a substance is given through a vein) of hypertonic saline (concentrated salt (sodium chloride) solution) compared with other types of infusion for lowering intracranial pressure (pressure in and around the brain) in the management of acute traumatic brain injury."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6438
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPhototherapy is a widely accepted, effective first-line therapy for neonatal jaundice. It is traditionally used continuously but intermittent phototherapy has been proposed as an equally effective alternative with practical advantages of improved maternal feeding and bonding. The effectiveness of intermittent phototherapy compared with continuous phototherapy is unknown.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and effectiveness of intermittent phototherapy compared with continuous phototherapy.\nSearch methods\nSearches were conducted on 31 January 2022 in the following databases: CENTRAL via CRS Web, MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs, cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing intermittent phototherapy with continuous phototherapy in jaundiced infants (both term and preterm) up to the age of 30 days. We compared intermittent phototherapy with continuous phototherapy by any method and at any dose and duration as defined by the authors.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality and extracted data from included studies. We performed fixed-effect analyses and expressed treatment effects as mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our primary outcomes of interest were rate of decline of serum bilirubin, and kernicterus. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 12 RCTs (1600 infants) in the review. There is one ongoing study and four awaiting classification. There was little or no difference between intermittent phototherapy and continuous phototherapy with respect to rate of decline of bilirubin in jaundiced newborn infants (MD -0.09 micromol/L/hr, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.03; I² = 61%; 10 studies; 1225 infants; low-certainty evidence). One study involving 60 infants reported no incidence of bilirubin induced brain dysfunction (BIND). It is uncertain whether either intermittent or continuous phototherapy reduces BIND because the certainty of this evidence is very low. There was little or no difference in treatment failure (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.15; RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.29 to 9.17; 1 study; 75 infants; very low-certainty evidence) or infant mortality (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.31 I² = 0%; 10 studies, 1470 infants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available evidence detected little or no difference between intermittent and continuous phototherapy with respect to rate of decline of bilirubin. Continuous phototherapy appears to be more effective in preterm infants, however, the risks of continuous phototherapy and the potential benefits of a slightly lower bilirubin level are unknown. Intermittent phototherapy is associated with a decrease in the total number of hours of phototherapy exposure. There are theoretical benefits to intermittent regimens but there are important safety outcomes that were inadequately addressed. Large, well designed, prospective trials are needed in both preterm and term infants before it can be concluded that intermittent and continuous phototherapy regimens are equally effective.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 33 studies that assessed the effect of intermittent phototherapy in infants through searches of medical databases up to January 2022. Of these, 12 studies (involving a total of 1600 infants) were eligible for inclusion in this review. One study is currently ongoing and four are awaiting classification. Our primary outcomes of interest were the rate of fall in the serum bilirubin levels and bilirubin-induced brain dysfunction (BIND). Search is up-to-date as of 31 January 2022."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6439
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInterstitial lung disease (ILD) is characterised by reduced functional capacity, dyspnoea and exercise-induced hypoxia. Pulmonary rehabilitation is often used to improve symptoms, health-related quality of life and functional status in other chronic lung conditions. There is accumulating evidence for comparable effects of pulmonary rehabilitation in people with ILD. However, further information is needed to clarify the long-term benefit and to strengthen the rationale for pulmonary rehabilitation to be incorporated into standard clinical management of people with ILD. This review updates the results reported in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether pulmonary rehabilitation in people with ILD has beneficial effects on exercise capacity, symptoms, quality of life and survival compared with no pulmonary rehabilitation in people with ILD.\nTo assess the safety of pulmonary rehabilitation in people with ILD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and PEDro from inception to April 2020. We searched the reference lists of relevant studies, international clinical trial registries and respiratory conference abstracts to look for qualifying studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials in which pulmonary rehabilitation was compared with no pulmonary rehabilitation or with other therapy in people with ILD of any origin.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to request missing data and information regarding adverse effects. We specified a priori subgroup analyses for participants with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and participants with severe lung disease (low diffusing capacity or desaturation during exercise). There were insufficient data to perform the prespecified subgroup analysis for type of exercise training modality.\nMain results\nFor this update, we included an additional 12 studies resulting in a total of 21 studies. We included 16 studies in the meta-analysis (356 participants undertook pulmonary rehabilitation and 319 were control participants). The mean age of participants ranged from 36 to 72 years and included people with ILD of varying aetiology, sarcoidosis or IPF (with mean transfer factor of carbon dioxide (TLCO) % predicted ranging from 37% to 63%). Most pulmonary rehabilitation programmes were conducted in an outpatient setting, with a small number conducted in home-based, inpatient or tele-rehabilitation settings. The duration of pulmonary rehabilitation ranged from three to 48 weeks. There was a moderate risk of bias due to the absence of outcome assessor blinding and intention-to-treat analyses and the inadequate reporting of randomisation and allocation procedures in 60% of the studies.\nPulmonary rehabilitation probably improves the six-minute walk distance (6MWD) with mean difference (MD) of 40.07 metres, 95% confidence interval (CI) 32.70 to 47.44; 585 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be improvements in peak workload (MD 9.04 watts, 95% CI 6.07 to 12.0; 159 participants; low-certainty evidence), peak oxygen consumption (MD 1.28 mL/kg/minute, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.05; 94 participants; low-certainty evidence) and maximum ventilation (MD 7.21 L/minute, 95% CI 4.10 to 10.32; 94 participants; low-certainty evidence). In the subgroup of participants with IPF, there were comparable improvements in 6MWD (MD 37.25 metres, 95% CI 26.16 to 48.33; 278 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), peak workload (MD 9.94 watts, 95% CI 6.39 to 13.49; low-certainty evidence), VO2 (oxygen uptake) peak (MD 1.45 mL/kg/minute, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.40; low-certainty evidence) and maximum ventilation (MD 9.80 L/minute, 95% CI 6.06 to 13.53; 62 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on maximum heart rate was uncertain.\nPulmonary rehabilitation may reduce dyspnoea in participants with ILD (standardised mean difference (SMD) –0.36, 95% CI –0.58 to –0.14; 348 participants; low-certainty evidence) and in the IPF subgroup (SMD –0.41, 95% CI –0.74 to –0.09; 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pulmonary rehabilitation probably improves health-related quality of life: there were improvements in all four domains of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) and the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) for participants with ILD and for the subgroup of people with IPF. The improvement in SGRQ Total score was –9.29 for participants with ILD (95% CI –11.06 to –7.52; 478 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and –7.91 for participants with IPF (95% CI –10.55 to –5.26; 194 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Five studies reported longer-term outcomes, with improvements in exercise capacity, dyspnoea and health-related quality of life still evident six to 12 months following the intervention period (6MWD: MD 32.43, 95% CI 15.58 to 49.28; 297 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; dyspnoea: MD –0.29, 95% CI –0.49 to –0.10; 335 participants; SGRQ Total score: MD –4.93, 95% CI –7.81 to –2.06; 240 participants; low-certainty evidence). In the subgroup of participants with IPF, there were improvements at six to 12 months following the intervention for dyspnoea and SGRQ Impact score. The effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on survival at long-term follow-up is uncertain. There were insufficient data to allow examination of the impact of disease severity or exercise training modality.\nTen studies provided information on adverse events; however, there were no adverse events reported during rehabilitation. Four studies reported the death of one pulmonary rehabilitation participant; however, all four studies indicated this death was unrelated to the intervention received.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPulmonary rehabilitation can be performed safely in people with ILD. Pulmonary rehabilitation probably improves functional exercise capacity, dyspnoea and quality of life in the short term, with benefits also probable in IPF. Improvements in functional exercise capacity, dyspnoea and quality of life were sustained longer term. Dyspnoea and quality of life may be sustained in people with IPF. The certainty of evidence was low to moderate, due to inadequate reporting of methods, the lack of outcome assessment blinding and heterogeneity in some results. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to determine the optimal exercise prescription, and to investigate ways to promote longer-lasting improvements, particularly for people with IPF.\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": "immediately following pulmonary rehabilitation, participants could walk further than those who had not undertaken pulmonary rehabilitation (on average, 40 metres further in six minutes). Participants also improved their maximum exercise capacity and reported less shortness of breath and improved quality of life. People with IPF experienced comparable improvements in exercise capacity, shortness of breath and quality of life following pulmonary rehabilitation. Six to 12 months following pulmonary rehabilitation, participants could still walk further than those who had not undertaken pulmonary rehabilitation (on average 37 metres further in six minutes) and they sustained some improvements in shortness of breath and quality of life. In people with IPF, it is less certain whether improvements are sustained six to 12 months following pulmonary rehabilitation. There were no studies that described any side effects of pulmonary rehabilitation."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6440
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with a low platelet count (thrombocytopenia) often require lumbar punctures or an epidural anaesthetic. Lumbar punctures can be diagnostic (haematological malignancies, subarachnoid haematoma, meningitis) or therapeutic (spinal anaesthetic, administration of chemotherapy). Epidural catheters are placed for administration of epidural anaesthetic. Current practice in many countries is to correct thrombocytopenia with platelet transfusions prior to lumbar punctures and epidural anaesthesia, in order to mitigate the risk of serious procedure-related bleeding. However, the platelet count threshold recommended prior to these procedures varies significantly from country to country. This indicates significant uncertainty among clinicians regarding the correct management of these patients. The risk of bleeding appears to be low, but if bleeding occurs it can be very serious (spinal haematoma). Consequently, people may be exposed to the risks of a platelet transfusion without any obvious clinical benefit.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2016.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different platelet transfusion thresholds prior to a lumbar puncture or epidural anaesthesia in people with thrombocytopenia (low platelet count).\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), interrupted time series studies (ITSs), and cohort studies in CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 13 February 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs, nRCTs, CBAs, ITSs, and cohort studies involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in people of any age with thrombocytopenia requiring insertion of a lumbar puncture needle or epidural catheter.\nThe original review only included RCTs.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for including RCTs, nRCTs, CBAs, and ITSs. Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Results were only expressed narratively.\nMain results\nWe identified no completed or ongoing RCTs, nRCTs, CBAs, or ITSs. No studies included people undergoing an epidural procedure. No studies compared different platelet count thresholds prior to a procedure.\nIn this update we identified three retrospective cohort studies that contained participants who did and did not receive platelet transfusions prior to lumbar puncture procedures. All three studies were carried out in people with cancer, most of whom had a haematological malignancy. Two studies were in children, and one was in adults.\nThe number of participants receiving platelet transfusions prior to the lumbar puncture procedures was not reported in one study. We therefore only summarised in a narrative form the relevant outcomes from two studies (150 participants; 129 children and 21 adults), in which the number of participants who received the transfusion was given.\nWe judged the overall risk of bias for all reported outcomes for both studies as 'serious' based on the ROBINS-I tool.\nNo procedure-related major bleeding occurred in the two studies that reported this outcome (2 studies, 150 participants, no cases, very low-quality evidence).\nThere was no evidence of a difference in the risk of minor bleeding (traumatic tap) in participants who received platelet transfusions before a lumbar puncture and those who did not receive a platelet transfusion before the procedure (2 studies, 150 participants, very low-quality evidence). One of the 14 adults who received a platelet transfusion experienced minor bleeding (traumatic tap; defined as at least 500 x 106/L red blood cells in the cerebrospinal fluid); none of the seven adults who did not receive a platelet transfusion experienced this event. Ten children experienced minor bleeding (traumatic taps; defined as at least 100 x 106/L red blood cells in the cerebrospinal fluid), six out of the 57 children who received a platelet transfusion and four out of the 72 children who did not receive a platelet transfusion.\nNo serious adverse events occurred in the one study that reported this outcome (1 study, 21 participants, very low-quality evidence).\nWe found no studies that evaluated all-cause mortality within 30 days from the lumbar puncture procedure, length of hospital stay, proportion of participants who received platelet transfusions, or quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence from RCTs or non-randomised studies on which to base an assessment of the correct platelet transfusion threshold prior to insertion of a lumbar puncture needle or epidural catheter. There are no ongoing registered RCTs assessing the effects of different platelet transfusion thresholds prior to the insertion of a lumbar puncture or epidural anaesthesia in people with thrombocytopenia. Any future study would need to be very large to detect a difference in the risk of bleeding. A study would need to be designed with at least 47,030 participants to be able to detect an increase in the number of people who had major procedure-related bleeding from 1 in 1000 to 2 in 1000. The use of a central data collection register or routinely collected electronic records (big data) is likely to be the only method to systematically gather data relevant to this population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There were no major procedure-related bleeding complications in either study. No serious adverse events occurred in the one study (21 participants) that reported this outcome.\nThere was little or no difference in the number of minor bleeding complications in either adults or children who received or did not receive platelet transfusions.\nNone of the studies reported on death, number of platelet transfusions given after the procedure, length of hospital stay, or quality of life."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6441
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIodine is an essential nutrient required for the biosynthesis of thyroid hormones, which are responsible for regulating growth, development and metabolism. Iodine requirements increase substantially during pregnancy and breastfeeding. If requirements are not met during these periods, the production of thyroid hormones may decrease and be inadequate for maternal, fetal and infant needs. The provision of iodine supplements may help meet the increased iodine needs during pregnancy and the postpartum period and prevent or correct iodine deficiency and its consequences.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of supplementation with iodine, alone or in combination with other vitamins and minerals, for women in the preconceptional, pregnancy or postpartum period on their and their children's outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (14 November 2016), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 November 2016), contacted experts in the field and searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and other relevant papers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials with randomisation at either the individual or cluster level comparing injected or oral iodine supplementation (such as tablets, capsules, drops) during preconception, pregnancy or the postpartum period irrespective of iodine compound, dose, frequency or duration.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, risk of bias, extracted data and conducted checks for accuracy. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence for primary outcomes.\nWe anticipated high heterogeneity among trials, and we pooled trial results using random-effects models and were cautious in our interpretation of the pooled results.\nMain results\nWe included 14 studies and excluded 48 studies. We identified five ongoing or unpublished studies and two studies are awaiting classification. Eleven trials involving over 2700 women contributed data for the comparisons in this review (in three trials, the primary or secondary outcomes were not reported).\nMaternal primary outcomes\nIodine supplementation decreased the likelihood of the adverse effect of postpartum hyperthyroidism by 68% (average risk ratio (RR) 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.91, three trials in mild to moderate iodine deficiency settings, 543 women, no statistical heterogeneity, low-quality evidence) and increased the likelihood of the adverse effect of digestive intolerance in pregnancy by 15 times (average RR 15.33; 95% CI 2.07 to 113.70, one trial in a mild-deficiency setting, 76 women, very low-quality evidence).\nThere were no clear differences between groups for hypothyroidism in pregnancy or postpartum (pregnancy: average RR 1.90; 95% CI 0.57 to 6.38, one trial, 365 women, low-quality evidence, and postpartum: average RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.06 to 3.42, three trials, 540 women, no statistical heterogeneity, low-quality evidence), preterm birth (average RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.66, two trials, 376 women, statistical heterogeneity, low-quality evidence) or the maternal adverse effects of elevated thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPO-ab) in pregnancy or postpartum (average RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.44 to 2.07, one trial, 359 women, low-quality evidence, average RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.30, three trials, 397 women, no statistical heterogeneity, low-quality evidence), or hyperthyroidism in pregnancy (average RR 1.90; 95% CI 0.57 to 6.38, one trial, 365 women, low-quality evidence). All of the trials contributing data to these outcomes took place in settings with mild to moderate iodine deficiency.\nInfant/child primary outcomes\nCompared with those who did not receive iodine, those who received iodine supplements had a 34% lower likelihood of perinatal mortality, however this difference was not statistically significant (average RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03, two trials, 457 assessments, low-quality evidence). All of the perinatal deaths occurred in one trial conducted in a severely iodine-deficient setting. There were no clear differences between groups for low birthweight (average RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.23, two trials, 377 infants, no statistical heterogeneity, low-quality evidence), neonatal hypothyroidism/elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) (average RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.11 to 3.12, two trials, 260 infants, very low-quality evidence) or the adverse effect of elevated neonatal thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPO-ab) (average RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.07 to 5.70, one trial, 108 infants, very low-quality evidence). All of the trials contributing data to these outcomes took place in areas with mild to moderate iodine deficiency. No trials reported on hypothyroidism/elevated TSH or any adverse effect beyond the neonatal period.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere were insufficient data to reach any meaningful conclusions on the benefits and harms of routine iodine supplementation in women before, during or after pregnancy. The available evidence suggested that iodine supplementation decreases the likelihood of postpartum hyperthyroidism and increases the likelihood of the adverse effect of digestive intolerance in pregnancy - both considered potential adverse effects. We considered evidence for these outcomes low or very low quality, however, because of study design limitations and wide confidence intervals. In addition, due to the small number of trials and included women in our meta-analyses, these findings must be interpreted with caution. There were no clear effects on other important maternal or child outcomes though these findings must also be interpreted cautiously due to limited data and low-quality trials. Additionally, almost all of the evidence came from settings with mild or moderate iodine deficiency and therefore may not be applicable to settings with severe deficiency.\nMore high-quality randomised controlled trials are needed on iodine supplementation before, during and after pregnancy on maternal and infant/child outcomes. However, it may be unethical to compare iodine to placebo or no treatment in severe deficiency settings. Trials may also be unfeasible in settings where pregnant and lactating women commonly take prenatal supplements with iodine. Information is needed on optimal timing of initiation as well as supplementation regimen and dose. Future trials should consider the outcomes in this review and follow children beyond the neonatal period. Future trials should employ adequate sample sizes, assess potential adverse effects (including the nature and extent of digestive intolerance), and be reported in a way that allows assessment of risk of bias, full data extraction and analysis by the subgroups specified in this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Thyroid function is increased during pregnancy as thyroid hormones produced by the mother (and the baby as the pregnancy progresses) are essential for growth and development of the baby and to regulate the development of the brain and nervous system. Nervous tissue begins to develop as early as the second month of pregnancy. If women have too little iodine during pregnancy or infants have too little during early childhood, the damage may be irreversible. Research has shown that severe iodine deficiency can stunt children's normal physical growth as well as harm normal mental development, resulting in lower intelligence quotients. Less is known about the consequences of mild or moderate deficiency. Too much iodine can also cause harm and have negative effects on mothers and babies, for example by causing the thyroid to become overactive.\nAlthough salt is the commonly the main source of iodine, expert medical groups recommend that women in many countries take iodine supplements during and following pregnancy to help ensure their iodine needs are met."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6442
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRadiotherapy and chemotherapy are used to improve survival in colorectal cancer but adverse effects can be a problem. Severe adverse effects may result in dose reduction or cessation of treatment, which have an impact on survival. Coriolus versicolor (Trametes versicolor or 'Turkey Tail') mushroom and its extracts have been used by cancer patients to help with adverse effects.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of adjunctive Coriolus versicolor (Trametes versicolor) and its extracts on adverse effects and on survival during colorectal cancer treatment (chemotherapy and radiotherapy) compared with no adjunctive treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL, Chinese and Japanese databases, and trials registers to 12th April 2022 without restriction of language or publication status. We screened reference lists and attempted to contact researchers in the field to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy and safety of Coriolus versicolor and its extracts in adult participants with a confirmed diagnosis of colorectal cancer, in addition to conventional treatment. Interventions included any preparation of Coriolus versicolor (raw, decoction, capsule, tablet, tincture, extract, injection), any part of the fungus (cap, stem, mycelium or whole), in any dose or regimen. Outcomes included adverse events rates, survival, disease progression and recurrence, response rates and quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted outcome data, and assessed risk of bias. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included seven parallel RCTs (1569 participants). Six studies (1516 participants) were conducted in Japan and one study (53 participants) in China. Studies included both male and female participants with colorectal cancer (five studies), colon cancer (one study) or rectal cancer (one study). Participants were diagnosed with cancer ranging from stage II to stage IV. Coriolus was used in the form of an extract in all seven studies and was generally used after curative resection, although in one study it was used preoperatively. Duration of treatment with the extract varied between four weeks and three years. Chemotherapeutic regimens in six studies consisted of an oral fluoropyrimidine which was preceded by weekly intravenous 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) in one study, by mitomycin C in two studies, and which was combined with folinic acid (Leucovorin) in two studies and with radiotherapy preoperatively in one study. XELOX (oxaliplatin intravenous infusion and capecitabine) was used in the remaining study.\nWe found very low-certainty evidence of little to no effect of adjunctive treatment with Coriolus (in the form of an extract, polysaccharide-Krestin, PSK) on withdrawal from treatment due to adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 2.34; 703 participants; 3 studies;). We are uncertain whether adjunctive Coriolus versicolor and its extracts compared to usual care alone resulted in a difference in adverse events including neutropenia (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71; 133 participants; 3 studies; very low certainty), oral cavity disorders such as oral dryness and mucositis (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.03; 1022 participants; 5 studies; very low certainty), nausea (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.22; 969 participants; 4 studies; very low certainty), diarrhoea (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.86; 1022 participants; 5 studies; very low certainty), and fatigue (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.33 to 1.78; 133 participants; 3 studies; very low certainty).\nWe found low-certainty evidence of a small effect of adjunctive Coriolus on improved survival at five years compared with no adjunctive care (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.15; 1094 participants; 3 studies; number needed to benefit (NNTB) = 16 (95% Cl 9 to 70). The effect at earlier time points was unclear.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the very low certainty of evidence, we were uncertain about the effect of adjunctive Coriolus (in the form of an extract PSK) on adverse events resulting from conventional chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. This includes effects on withdrawal of treatment due to adverse events and on specific adverse outcomes such as neutropenia and nausea. The uncertainty in the evidence also means that it was unclear whether any adverse events were due to the chemotherapy or to the extract itself. While there was low-certainty evidence of a small effect on overall survival at five years, the influence of reduced adverse effects on this could not be determined. In addition, chemotherapy regimens used in assessing this outcome do not reflect current preferred practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Radiotherapy and chemotherapy are used to treat colorectal cancer but side effects can be a problem. Coriolus versicolor mushroom (also known as Trametes versicolor or 'Turkey Tail') and its extracts have been used by cancer patients to help with side effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6443
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSurgery is a common treatment option in oral cavity cancer (and less frequently in oropharyngeal cancer) to remove the primary tumour and sometimes neck lymph nodes. People with early-stage disease may undergo surgery alone or surgery plus radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy/biotherapy, or a combination of these. Timing and extent of surgery varies. This is the third update of a review originally published in 2007.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the relative benefits and harms of different surgical treatment modalities for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 9 February 2022.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared two or more surgical treatment modalities, or surgery versus other treatment modalities, for primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx.\nData collection and analysis\nOur primary outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, locoregional recurrence, and recurrence; and our secondary outcomes were adverse effects of treatment, quality of life, direct and indirect costs to patients and health services, and participant satisfaction. We used standard Cochrane methods. We reported survival data as hazard ratios (HRs). For overall survival, we reported the HR of mortality, and for disease-free survival, we reported the combined HR of new disease, progression, and mortality; therefore, HRs below 1 indicated improvement in these outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified four new trials, bringing the total number of included trials to 15 (2820 participants randomised, 2583 participants analysed). For objective outcomes, we assessed four trials at high risk of bias, three at low risk, and eight at unclear risk. The trials evaluated nine comparisons; none compared different surgical approaches for excision of the primary tumour.\nFive trials evaluated elective neck dissection (ND) versus therapeutic (delayed) ND in people with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes. Elective ND compared with therapeutic ND probably improves overall survival (HR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.83; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 883 participants; moderate certainty) and disease-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.70; I2 = 12%; 5 trials, 954 participants; moderate certainty), and probably reduces locoregional recurrence (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.78; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 458 participants; moderate certainty) and recurrence (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.70; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 633 participants; moderate certainty). Elective ND is probably associated with more adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.31, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.54; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 746 participants; moderate certainty).\nTwo trials evaluated elective radical ND versus elective selective ND in people with oral cavity cancer, but we were unable to pool the data as the trials used different surgical procedures. Neither study found evidence of a difference in overall survival (pooled measure not estimable; very low certainty). We are unsure if there is a difference in effect on disease-free survival (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.11; 1 trial, 104 participants; very low certainty) or recurrence (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.33; 1 trial, 143 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference between the interventions in terms of adverse events (1 trial, 148 participants; low certainty).\nTwo trials evaluated superselective ND versus selective ND, but we were unable to use the data.\nOne trial evaluated supraomohyoid ND versus modified radical ND in 332 participants. We were unable to use any of the primary outcome data. The evidence on adverse events was very uncertain, with more complications, pain, and poorer shoulder function in the modified radical ND group.\nOne trial evaluated sentinel node biopsy versus elective ND in 279 participants. There may be little or no difference between the interventions in overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.11; low certainty), disease-free survival (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; low certainty), or locoregional recurrence (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.19; low certainty). The trial provided no usable data for recurrence, and reported no adverse events (very low certainty).\nOne trial evaluated positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy (with ND only if no or incomplete response) versus planned ND (before or after chemoradiotherapy) in 564 participants. There is probably no difference between the interventions in overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.31; moderate certainty) or locoregional recurrence (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; moderate certainty).\nOne trial evaluated surgery plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone and provided very low-certainty evidence of better overall survival in the surgery plus radiotherapy group (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.59; 35 participants). The data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and had multiple protocol violations. In terms of adverse events, subcutaneous fibrosis was more frequent in the surgery plus radiotherapy group, but there were no differences in other adverse events (very low certainty).\nOne trial evaluated surgery versus radiotherapy alone for oropharyngeal cancer in 68 participants. There may be little or no difference between the interventions for overall survival (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.46; low certainty) or disease-free survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.22; low certainty). For adverse events, there were too many outcomes to draw reliable conclusions.\nOne trial evaluated surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy versus chemotherapy. We were unable to use the data for any of the outcomes reported (very low certainty).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence based on five trials that elective neck dissection of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary oral cavity tumour is superior to therapeutic neck dissection, with increased survival and disease-free survival, and reduced locoregional recurrence.\nThere was moderate-certainty evidence from one trial of no difference between positron emission tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy versus planned neck dissection in terms of overall survival or locoregional recurrence.\nThe evidence for each of the other seven comparisons came from only one or two studies and was assessed as low or very low-certainty.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Main results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Five studies evaluated removal of the primary tumour, comparing elective neck dissection with the 'watch and wait approach' in people with mouth cancer. The results show that elective neck dissection probably leads to longer overall and disease-free survival and less locoregional recurrence, but more unwanted effects.\nTwo studies compared radical neck dissection versus selective neck dissection in people with mouth cancer. It is unclear which treatment provides better outcomes.\nTwo trials evaluated a more limited neck dissection (superselective) versus selective neck dissection; we were unable to use the data reported.\nOne study compared a more selective neck dissection (supraomohyoid) and a modified radical neck dissection. We were unable to use the data reported. The modified radical neck dissection group had more complications, more pain, and poorer shoulder function, but we are very uncertain about the results.\nIn one study, all the people in one group had a lymph node biopsy and only had neck lymph nodes removed if the biopsy was positive, while all people in the other group had neck lymph nodes removed without a biopsy. There may be no difference between these two approaches in terms of overall survival, disease-free survival, and locoregional recurrence. No unwanted effects were reported.\nOne study evaluated using a special scan (positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT)) after combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy to guide decisions about neck dissection, versus a planned neck dissection before or after chemoradiotherapy. There is probably no difference between these approaches in terms of overall survival or locoregional recurrence. There may be no difference in unwanted effects, but we are very uncertain about the results.\nOne trial suggested that surgery plus radiotherapy may result in better overall survival than radiotherapy alone, but we are very uncertain about the results. Surgery may result in more thickened scar tissue. There may be no difference with regard to other unwanted effects.\nOne study compared surgery versus radiotherapy in people with throat cancer. There may be no difference in overall survival, disease-free survival, or unwanted effects, but we are very uncertain about the results.\nOne study compared surgery followed by radiotherapy versus chemotherapy. People receiving surgery and radiotherapy may live longer without symptoms, but we are very uncertain about the results."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6444
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAntisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with rule-breaking, criminality, substance use, unemployment, relationship difficulties, and premature death. Certain types of medication (drugs) may help people with AsPD. This review updates a previous Cochrane review, published in 2010.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and adverse effects of pharmacological interventions for adults with AsPD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases and two trials registers up to 5 September 2019. We also checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials in which adults (age 18 years and over) with a diagnosis of AsPD or dissocial personality disorder were allocated to a pharmacological intervention or placebo control condition.\nData collection and analysis\nFour authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings tables' and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework. The primary outcomes were: aggression; reconviction; global state/global functioning; social functioning; and adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included 11 studies (three new to this update), involving 416 participants with AsPD. Most studies (10/11) were conducted in North America. Seven studies were conducted exclusively in an outpatient setting, one in an inpatient setting, and one in prison; two studies used multiple settings. The average age of participants ranged from 28.6 years to 45.1 years (overall mean age 39.6 years). Participants were predominantly (90%) male. Study duration ranged from 6 to 24 weeks, with no follow-up period. Data were available from only four studies involving 274 participants with AsPD. All the available data came from unreplicated, single reports, and did not allow independent statistical analysis to be conducted. Many review findings were limited to descriptive summaries based on analyses carried out and reported by the trial investigators.\nNo study set out to recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD; many participants presented primarily with substance abuse problems. The studies reported on four primary outcomes and six secondary outcomes. Primary outcomes were aggression (six studies) global/state functioning (three studies), social functioning (one study), and adverse events (seven studies). Secondary outcomes were leaving the study early (eight studies), substance misuse (five studies), employment status (one study), impulsivity (one study), anger (three studies), and mental state (three studies). No study reported data on the primary outcome of reconviction or the secondary outcomes of quality of life, engagement with services, satisfaction with treatment, housing/accommodation status, economic outcomes or prison/service outcomes.\nEleven different drugs were compared with placebo, but data for AsPD participants were only available for five comparisons. Three classes of drug were represented: antiepileptic; antidepressant; and dopamine agonist (anti-Parkinsonian) drugs. We considered selection bias to be unclear in 8/11 studies, attrition bias to be high in 7/11 studies, and performance bias to be low in 7/11 studies. Using GRADE, we rated the certainty of evidence for each outcome in this review as very low, meaning that we have very little confidence in the effect estimates reported.\nPhenytoin (antiepileptic) versus placebo\nOne study (60 participants) reported very low-certainty evidence that phenytoin (300 mg/day), compared to placebo, may reduce the mean frequency of aggressive acts per week (phenytoin mean = 0.33, no standard deviation (SD) reported; placebo mean = 0.51, no SD reported) in male prisoners with aggression (skewed data) at endpoint (six weeks). The same study (60 participants) reported no evidence of difference between phenytoin and placebo in the number of participants reporting the adverse event of nausea during week one (odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 16.76; very low-certainty evidence). The study authors also reported that no important side effects were detectable via blood cell counts or liver enzyme tests (very low-certainty evidence).\nThe study did not measure reconviction, global/state functioning or social functioning.\nDesipramine (antidepressant) versus placebo\nOne study (29 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between desipramine (250 to 300 mg/day) and placebo on mean social functioning scores (desipramine = 0.19; placebo = 0.21), assessed with the family-social domain of the Addiction Severity Index (scores range from zero to one, with higher values indicating worse social functioning), at endpoint (12 weeks) (very low-certainty evidence).\nNeither of the studies included in this comparison measured the other primary outcomes: aggression; reconviction; global/state functioning; or adverse events.\nNortriptyline (antidepressant) versus placebo\nOne study (20 participants) reported no evidence of a difference between nortriptyline (25 to 75 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (nortriptyline = 0.3; placebo = 0.7), assessed with the Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-90) Global Severity Index (GSI; mean of subscale scores, ranging from zero to four, with higher scores indicating greater severity of symptoms), at endpoint (six months) in men with alcohol dependency (very low-certainty evidence).\nThe study measured side effects but did not report data on adverse events for the AsPD subgroup.\nThe study did not measure aggression, reconviction or social functioning.\nBromocriptine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo\nOne study (18 participants) reported no evidence of difference between bromocriptine (15 mg/day) and placebo on mean global state/functioning scores (bromocriptine = 0.4; placebo = 0.7), measured with the GSI of the SCL-90 at endpoint (six months) (very low-certainty evidence).\nThe study did not provide data on adverse effects, but reported that 12 patients randomised to the bromocriptine group experienced severe side effects, five of whom dropped out of the study in the first two days due to nausea and severe flu-like symptoms (very low-certainty evidence).\nThe study did not measure aggression, reconviction and social functioning.\nAmantadine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo\nThe study in this comparison did not measure any of the primary outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence summarised in this review is insufficient to draw any conclusion about the use of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of antisocial personality disorder. The evidence comes from single, unreplicated studies of mostly older medications. The studies also have methodological issues that severely limit the confidence we can draw from their results. Future studies should recruit participants on the basis of having AsPD, and use relevant outcome measures, including reconviction.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Bromocriptine (dopamine agonist) versus placebo\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "One study (18 participants) found no evidence of a difference in global state/functioning scores at six months, between a drug used to treat Parkinson's disease (bromocriptine) and placebo. Twelve participants randomised to the bromocriptine group experienced side effects, five of whom dropped out due to sickness and flu-like symptoms in the first two days. We are very uncertain about these findings."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6445
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevalence and incidence of pain and skeletal complications of metastatic bone disease such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression and hypercalcemia is high and an important contributor to morbidity, poor performance status and decreased quality of life. Moreover, pathologic fractures are associated with increased risk of death in people with disseminated malignancies. Therefore, prevention of pain and fractures are important goals in men with prostate cancer at risk for skeletal complications.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of bisphosphonates in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe identified studies by electronic search of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and MEDLINE on 13 July 2017 and trial registries. We handsearched the Proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology (to July 2017) and reference lists of all eligible trials identified. This is an update of a review last published in 2006.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled studies comparing the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined the proportion of participants with pain response as the primary end point; secondary outcomes were skeletal-related events, mortality, quality of life, adverse events, analgesic consumption and disease progression. We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 18 trials reporting on 4843 participants comparing the effect of bisphosphonate administration to control regimens.\nPrimary outcome: there was no clear difference in the proportion of participants with pain response (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.43; P = 0.20; I2 = 0%; 3 trials; 876 participants; low quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in a pain response in 40 more participants per 1000 (19 fewer to 114 more).\nSecondary outcomes: bisphosphonates probably reduced the incidence of skeletal-related events in participants with prostate cancer metastatic to bone (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; P = 0.27; I2 = 19%; 9 trials; 3153 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 58 fewer SREs per 1000 (85 fewer to 27 fewer).\nWe found no clinically relevant differences in mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; P = 0.43; I2 = 1%; 9 trials; 2450 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 16 fewer deaths per 1000 (47 fewer to 21 more).\nOutcome definition of quality of life and the measurement tools varied greatly across trials and we were unable to extract any quantitative data for meta-analysis.\nBisphosphonates probably increased the number of participants affected by nausea (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; P = 0.05; I2 = 0%; 9 trials; 3008 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in seven more cases of nausea per 1000 (0 fewer to 14 more). Bisphosphonates probably increased the number of renal adverse events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.46; P = 0.01; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; 1794 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 22 more renal adverse events per 1000 (4 more to 50 more). We found no clear difference in the number of participants with osteonecrosis of the jaw between groups (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.90; P = 0.17; I2 = 0%; 5 trials; 1626 participants; very low quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in seven more cases with osteonecrosis of the jaw per 1000 (2 fewer to 29 more). We observed no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of participants with decreased analgesic consumption (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.63; P = 0.28; I2 = 37%; 4 trials; 416 participants). Statistical analysis revealed that bisphosphonates probably reduced the number of participants with disease progression (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.98; P = 0.006; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; 2115 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 36 fewer cases of disease progression per 1000 (71 fewer to 7 fewer).\nFindings of our predefined subgroup and sensitivity analyses were no different from those of the primary analyses.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on low quality evidence, there may be no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of men with pain response between bisphosphonates and control regimens in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer. Bisphosphonates probably decrease the number of skeletal-related events and disease progression. These benefits need to be weighed against the increased risk of renal impairment and nausea in men receiving bisphosphonates. Future studies should explicitly evaluate patient important outcomes such as quality of life and pain by using standardized and comparable assessment tools.\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 prostate is a gland in the male reproductive system. Prostate cancer can spread to other parts of the body (called metastases) including the bones. Bone fractures and compression of the spinal cord are feared complications in addition to death due to prostate cancer. Bisphosphonates are medicines that interact with the formation of new bone and might be useful to prevent the men from experiencing bone pain, fractures or other skeletal complications. We focused this review on pain because pain frequently occurs and can restrict the daily life activities and might require further treatment."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6446
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRecurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC) affects up to 5% of women. No comprehensive systematic review of treatments for RVVC has been published.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for RVVC. The secondary objective was to assess patient preference of treatment options.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted electronic searches of bibliographic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL (search date 6 October 2021). We also handsearched reference lists of identified trials and contacted authors of identified trials, experts in RVVC, and manufacturers of products for vulvovaginal candidiasis.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials evaluating RVVC treatments for at least six months, in women with four or more symptomatic episodes of vulvovaginal candidiasis in the past year. We excluded women with immunosuppressive disorders or taking immunosuppressant medication. We included women with diabetes mellitus and pregnant women.\nDiagnosis of RVVC must have been confirmed by presence of symptoms and a positive culture and/or microscopy. We included all drug and non-drug therapies and partner treatment, assessing the following primary outcomes:\n• number of clinical recurrences per participant per year (recurrence defined as clinical signs and positive culture/microscopy);\n• proportion of participants with at least one clinical recurrence during the treatment and follow-up period; and\n• adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts to identify eligible trials. Duplicate data extraction was completed independently by two authors. We assessed risk of bias as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the fixed-effects model for pooling and expressed the results as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where important statistical heterogeneity was present we either did not pool data (I2 > 70%) or used a random-effects model (I2 40-70%). We used the GRADE tool to assess overall certainty of the evidence for the pooled primary outcomes.\nMain results\nStudies: Twenty-three studies involving 2212 women aged 17 to 67 years met the inclusion criteria. Most studies excluded pregnant women and women with diabetes or immunosuppression. The predominant species found on culture at study entry was Candida albicans. Overall, the included studies were small (<100 participants). Six studies compared antifungal treatment with placebo (607 participants); four studies compared oral versus topical antifungals (543 participants); one study compared different oral antifungals (45 participants); two studies compared different dosing regimens for antifungals (100 participants); one study compared two different dosing regimens of the same topical agent (23 participants); one study compared short versus longer treatment duration (26 participants); two studies assessed the effect of partner treatment (98 participants); one study compared a complementary treatment (Lactobacillus vaginal tablets and probiotic oral tablets) with placebo (34 participants); three studies compared complementary medicine with antifungals (354 participants); two studies compared 'dermasilk' briefs with cotton briefs (130 participants); one study examined Lactobacillus vaccination versus heliotherapy versus ciclopyroxolamine (90 participants); one study compared CAM treatments to an antifungal treatment combined with CAM treatments (68 participants). We did not find any studies comparing different topical antifungals. Nine studies reported industry funding, three were funded by an independent source and eleven did not report their funding source.\nRisk of bias: Overall, the risk of bias was high or unclear due to insufficient blinding of allocation and participants and poor reporting.\nPrimary outcomes: Meta-analyses comparing drug treatments (oral and topical) with placebo or no treatment showed there may be a clinically relevant reduction in clinical recurrence at 6 months (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.63; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 2; participants = 607; studies = 6; I² = 82%; low-certainty evidence) and 12 months (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89; NNTB = 6; participants = 585; studies = 6; I² = 21%; low-certainty evidence). No study reported on the number of clinical recurrences per participant per year.\nWe are very uncertain whether oral drug treatment compared to topical treatment increases the risk of clinical recurrence at 6 months (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.31; participants = 206; studies = 3; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) and reduces the risk of clinical recurrence at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; participants = 206; studies = 3; I² = 10%; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on the number of clinical recurrences per participant per year.\nAdverse events were scarce across both treatment and control groups in both comparisons. The reporting of adverse events varied amongst studies, was generally of very low quality and could not be pooled. Overall the adverse event rate was low for both placebo and treatment arms and ranged from less than 5% to no side effects or complications.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn women with RVVC, treatment with oral or topical antifungals may reduce symptomatic clinical recurrences when compared to placebo or no treatment. We were unable to find clear differences between different treatment options (e.g. oral versus topical treatment, different doses and durations). These findings are not applicable to pregnant or immunocompromised women and women with diabetes as the studies did not include or report on them. More research is needed to determine the optimal medication, dose and frequency.\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": "Six studies (607 participants) compared antifungal medication with placebo or no treatment. Based on low certainty evidence antifungal treatments may give a clinically relevant reduction in clinical recurrence at 6 and 12 months. We are uncertain if oral treatments are better than topical treatments (very low certainty evidence for no difference).\nAdverse effects of taking antifungal medication to prevent recurrence of thrush were not common. Studies reported on adverse effects differently, making comparisons difficult. More research is needed to determine the optimal medication, dose and frequency. We were unable to determine the effects in women who are pregnant or have diabetes."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6447
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeriorbital and orbital cellulitis are infections of the tissue anterior and posterior to the orbital septum, respectively, and can be difficult to differentiate clinically. Periorbital cellulitis can also progress to become orbital cellulitis.\nOrbital cellulitis has a relatively high incidence in children and adults, and potentially serious consequences including vision loss, meningitis, and death. Complications occur in part due to inflammatory swelling from the infection creating a compartment syndrome within the bony orbit, leading to elevated ocular pressure and compression of vasculature and the optic nerve. Corticosteroids are used in other infections to reduce this inflammation and edema, but they can lead to immune suppression and worsening infection.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of adjunctive corticosteroids for periorbital and orbital cellulitis, and to assess their effectiveness and safety in children and in adults separately.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 March 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies of participants diagnosed with periorbital or orbital cellulitis. We excluded studies that focused exclusively on participants who were undergoing elective endoscopic surgery, including management of infections postsurgery as well as studies conducted solely on trauma patients. Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Any study that administered corticosteroids was eligible regardless of type of steroid, route of administration, length of therapy, or timing of treatment. Comparators could include placebo, another corticosteroid, no treatment control, or another intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.\nMain results\nThe search yielded 7998 records, of which 13 were selected for full-text screening. We identified one trial for inclusion. No other eligible ongoing or completed trials were identified. The included study compared the use of corticosteroids in addition to antibiotics to the use of antibiotics alone for the treatment of orbital cellulitis. The study included a total of 21 participants aged 10 years and older, of which 14 participants were randomized to corticosteroids and antibiotics and 7 participants to antibiotics alone. Participants randomized to corticosteroids and antibiotics received adjunctive corticosteroids after initial antibiotic response (mean 5.13 days), at an initial dose of 1.5 mg/kg for three days followed by 1 mg/kg for another three days before being tapered over a one- to two-week period.\nWe assessed the included study as having an unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment, masking (blinding), selective outcome reporting, and other sources of bias. Risk of bias from sequence generation and incomplete outcome data were low.\nThe certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low, downgraded for risk of bias (-1) and imprecision (-2). Length of hospital stay was compared between the group receiving antibiotics alone compared to the group receiving antibiotics and corticosteroids (mean difference (MD) 4.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.48 to 9.08; 21 participants). There was no observed difference in duration of antibiotics between treatment groups (MD 3.00, 95% CI −0.48 to 6.48; 21 participants). Likewise, preservation of visual acuity at 12 weeks of follow-up between group was also assessed (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22; 21 participants). Pain scores were compared between groups on day 3 (MD −0.20, 95% CI −1.02 to 0.62; 22 eyes) along with the need for surgical intervention (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.23; 21 participants). Exposure keratopathy was reported in five participants who received corticosteroids and antibiotics and three participants who received antibiotic alone (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.63; 21 participants). No major complications of orbital cellulitis were seen in either the intervention or the control group. No side effects of corticosteroids were reported, although it is unclear which side effects were assessed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the use of corticosteroids in the treatment of periorbital and orbital cellulitis. Since there is significant variation in how corticosteroids are used in clinical practice, additional high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials is needed to inform decision making. Future studies should explore the effects of corticosteroids in children and adults separately, and evaluate different dosing and timing of corticosteroid 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": "We do not know if steroids are useful in treating periorbital and orbital cellulitis. We identified only one small study that looked at this topic, which showed that there may be a benefit to using steroids and antibiotics together. However, larger and higher-quality studies are needed to better understand this topic."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6448
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic deep venous insufficiency is caused by incompetent vein valves, blockage of large-calibre leg veins, or both; and causes a range of symptoms including recurrent ulcers, pain and swelling. Most surgeons accept that well-fitted graduated compression stockings (GCS) and local care of wounds serve as adequate treatment for most people, but sometimes symptoms are not controlled and ulcers recur frequently, or they do not heal despite compliance with conservative measures. In these situations, in the presence of severe venous dysfunction, surgery has been advocated by some vascular surgeons. This is an update of the review first published in 2000.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of surgical management of deep venous insufficiency on ulcer healing and recurrence, complications of surgery, clinical outcomes, quality of life (QoL) and pain.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases, and the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries to 23 June 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical treatment versus another surgical procedure, usual care or no treatment, for people with deep venous insufficiency.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We were unable to pool data due to differences in outcomes reported and how these were measured. Outcomes of interest were ulcer healing and recurrence, complications of surgery, clinical changes, QoL and pain.\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs (273 participants) comparing valvuloplasty plus surgery of the superficial venous system with surgery of the superficial venous system for primary valvular incompetence. Follow-up was two to 10 years. All included studies investigated primary valve incompetence. No studies investigated other surgical procedures for the treatment of people with deep venous insufficiency or surgery for secondary valvular incompetence or venous obstruction. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded for risk of bias concerns and imprecision due to small numbers of included trials, participants and events.\nNone of the studies reported ulcer healing or ulcer recurrence. One study included 27 participants with active venous ulceration at the time of surgery; the other three studies did not include people with ulcers.\nThere were no major complications of surgery, no incidence of deep vein thrombosis and no deaths reported (very low-certainty evidence).\nAll four studies reported clinical changes but the data could not be pooled due to different outcome measures and reporting of the data. Two studies assessed clinical changes using subjective and objective measurements, as specified in the clinical, aetiological, anatomical and pathophysiological (CEAP) classification score (low-certainty evidence). One study reported mean CEAP severity scores and one study reported change in clinical class using CEAP. At baseline, the mean CEAP severity score was 18.1 (standard deviation (SD) 4.4) for limbs undergoing external valvuloplasty with surgery to the superficial venous system and 17.8 (SD 3.4) for limbs undergoing surgery to the superficial venous system only. At three years post-surgery, the mean CEAP severity score was 5.2 (SD 1.6) for limbs that had undergone external valvuloplasty with surgery to the superficial venous system and 9.2 (SD 2.6) for limbs that had undergone surgery to the superficial venous system only (low-certainty evidence).\nIn another study, participants with progressive clinical dynamics over the five years preceding surgery had higher rates of improvement in clinical condition in the treatment group (valvuloplasty plus ligation) compared with the control group (ligation only) (80% versus 51%) after seven years of follow-up. Participants with stable preoperative clinical dynamics demonstrated similar rates of improvement in both groups (95% with valvuloplasty plus ligation versus 90% with ligation only) (low-certainty evidence).\nOne study reported disease-specific QoL using cumulative scores from a 10-item visual analogue scale (VAS) and reported that in the limited anterior plication (LAP) plus superficial venous surgery group the score decreased from 49 to 11 at 10 years, compared to a decrease from 48 to 36 in participants treated with superficial venous surgery only (very low-certainty evidence).\nTwo studies reported pain. Within the QoL VAS scale, one item was 'pain/discomfort' and scores decreased from 4 to 1 at 10 years for participants in the LAP plus superficial venous surgery group and increased from 2 to 3 at 10 years in participants treated with superficial venous surgery only. A second study reported that 'leg heaviness and pain' was resolved completely in 36/40 limbs treated with femoral vein external valvuloplasty plus high ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein (GSV) and percutaneous continuous circumsuture and 22/40 limbs treated with high ligation and stripping of GSV and percutaneous continuous circumsuture alone, at three years' follow-up (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe only identified evidence from four RCTs for valvuloplasty plus surgery of the superficial venous system for primary valvular incompetence. We found no studies investigating other surgical procedures for the treatment of people with deep venous insufficiency, or that included participants with secondary valvular incompetence or venous obstruction. None of the studies reported ulcer healing or recurrence, and few studies reported complications of surgery, clinical outcomes, QoL and pain (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Conclusions on the effectiveness of valvuloplasty for deep venous insufficiency cannot be made.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics and key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We looked for studies treating deep venous insufficiency with surgery (searched 23 June 2020). We found four studies that randomised 273 participants to treatment or control interventions. All included studies reported on outcomes following surgical repair of venous valves (valvuloplasty). All included studies investigated primary valve incompetence (when valves do not close properly). We found no studies investigating other surgical procedures for treatment or the results of surgery for secondary valvular incompetence (for example, when valves are damaged as a result of deep vein thrombosis and do not close properly), or for venous obstruction. As different outcomes were reported, we could not combine the results of these studies. No studies reported ulcer healing and ulcer recurrence. One study did not investigate this, and the remaining three studies did not include people with ulcers or active ulceration. Three studies reported no major complications of surgery or no incidence of deep vein thrombosis (a blood clot that forms in a deep vein, usually in the leg or pelvis) during follow-up.\nWe assessed clinical changes using the 'clinical, aetiological, anatomical and pathophysiological' (CEAP) classification score. One study reported an improved CEAP score three years after surgery in both groups, and a greater improvement from before surgery in limbs that had undergone valvuloplasty plus ligation (where a vein is tied off) compared with ligation alone. In another study, participants with worsening deep vein incompetence over the five years before surgery had higher rates of improvement in clinical condition with valvuloplasty plus ligation compared with ligation only after seven years, but in participants with stable deep vein incompetence, there was no additional benefit from the valvuloplasty.\nOne study reported improvement in patient-reported quality of life (including pain) in both groups and a greater improvement compared to before surgery in people who had undergone external valvuloplasty using a technique called limited anterior plication at 10 years' follow-up. A second study reported that leg heaviness and pain was resolved completely in 36/40 limbs treated with valvuloplasty plus ligation and 22/40 limbs treated with ligation alone at three years' follow-up."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6449
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBrain tumours are recognised as one of the most difficult cancers to diagnose because presenting symptoms, such as headache, cognitive symptoms, and seizures, may be more commonly attributable to other, more benign conditions. Interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours include national awareness initiatives, expedited pathways, and protocols to diagnose brain tumours, based on a person's presenting symptoms and signs; and interventions to reduce waiting times for brain imaging pathways. If such interventions reduce the time to diagnosis, it may make it less likely that people experience clinical deterioration, and different treatment options may be available.\nObjectives\nTo systematically evaluate evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that may influence: symptomatic participants to present early (shortening the patient interval), thresholds for primary care referral (shortening the primary care interval), and time to imaging diagnosis (shortening the secondary care interval and diagnostic interval).\nTo produce a brief economic commentary, summarising the economic evaluations relevant to these interventions.\nSearch methods\nFor evidence on effectiveness, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from January 2000 to January 2020; Clinicaltrials.gov to May 2020, and conference proceedings from 2014 to 2018. For economic evidence, we searched the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2000 to December 2014.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include studies evaluating any active intervention that may influence the diagnostic pathway, e.g. clinical guidelines, direct access imaging, public health campaigns, educational initiatives, and other interventions that might lead to early identification of primary brain tumours. We planned to include randomised and non-randomised comparative studies. Included studies would include people of any age, with a presentation that might suggest a brain tumour.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed titles identified by the search strategy, and the full texts of potentially eligible studies. We resolved discrepancies through discussion or, if required, by consulting another review author.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any studies for inclusion in this review. We excluded 115 studies. The main reason for exclusion of potentially eligible intervention studies was their study design, due to a lack of control groups. We found no economic evidence to inform a brief economic commentary on this topic.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn this version of the review, we did not identify any studies that met the review inclusion criteria for either effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Therefore, there is no evidence from good quality studies on the best strategies to reduce the time to diagnosis of brain tumours, despite the prioritisation of research on early diagnosis by the James Lind Alliance in 2015.\nThis review highlights the need for research in this area.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why this question is important\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "A brain tumour is a group of cells in the brain that develop in an abnormal and uncontrollable way. There are two main types of brain tumour:\n- Non-cancerous (benign) brain tumours: these grow slowly and do not spread throughout the body.\n- Cancerous (malignant) brain tumours: these grow faster and can spread to other parts of the body.\nBrain tumours that start in the brain are known as primary tumours. If they have spread to the brain from elsewhere, they are called secondary tumours.\nAll types of brain tumour are a serious health threat, since the brain controls all the functions of the body. Both benign and cancerous brain tumours can be fatal. Even when they are not, they can be very disabling. Symptoms can include:\n- Headaches\n- Epileptic seizures (fits)\n- Persistent nausea (feeling sick), vomiting, and drowsiness\n- Changes in behaviour or personality, trouble thinking, memory problems\n- Weakness, or paralysis that develops on one side of the body\n- Problems with speech or vision\nIt is difficult to diagnose brain tumours, because symptoms can all be mistaken for those of less serious conditions. It may take some time before their true cause – a brain tumour – is identified. Yet diagnosing a brain tumour as early as possible is important, because the bigger a tumour grows, the more difficult it is to treat, and the greater the potential for the treatment to cause collateral damage.\nA range of initiatives has been designed to speed up the diagnosis of brain tumours. This includes campaigns to increase doctors’ and the public’s awareness of the symptoms they cause, and professional guidelines to speed up referral for diagnostic scans or specialist assessment. To find out how effective these initiatives are, we set out to review the research evidence. We also wanted to investigate the cost of initiatives."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6450
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nExchange transfusion and phototherapy have traditionally been used to treat jaundice and avoid the associated neurological complications. Because of the risks and burdens of exchange transfusion, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) has been suggested as an alternative therapy for alloimmune hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN) to reduce the need for exchange transfusion.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect and complications of IVIg in newborn infants with alloimmune HDN on the need for and number of exchange transfusions.\nSearch methods\nWe performed electronic searches of CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Academic Search Premier, and the trial registers ClinicalTrials.gov and controlled-trials.com in May 2017. We also searched reference lists of included and excluded trials and relevant reviews for further relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of IVIg in the treatment of alloimmune HDN. Trials must have used predefined criteria for the use of IVIg and exchange transfusion therapy to be included.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methods of Cochrane and its Neonatal Review Group. We assessed studies for inclusion and two review authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We discussed any differences of opinion to reach consensus. We contacted investigators for additional or missing information. We calculated risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for categorical outcomes. We calculated mean difference (MD) for continuous variables. We used GRADE criteria to assess the risk of bias for major outcomes and to summarize the level of evidence.\nMain results\nNine studies with 658 infants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Term and preterm infants with Rh or ABO (or both) incompatibility were included. The use of exchange transfusion decreased significantly in the immunoglobulin treated group (typical RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.49; typical RD -0.22, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.16; NNTB 5). The mean number of exchange transfusions per infant was also significantly lower in the immunoglobulin treated group (MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.17). However, sensitivity analysis by risk of bias showed that in the only two studies in which the treatment was masked by use of a placebo and outcome assessment was blinded, the results differed; there was no difference in the need for exchange transfusions (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.98) or number of exchange transfusions (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.10). Two studies assessed long-term outcomes and found no cases of kernicterus, deafness or cerebral palsy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough overall results show a significant reduction in the need for exchange transfusion in infants treated with IVIg, the applicability of the results is limited because of low to very low quality of evidence. Furthermore, the two studies at lowest risk of bias show no benefit of IVIg in reducing the need for and number of exchange transfusions. Based on these results, we have insufficient confidence in the effect estimate for benefit of IVIg to make even a weak recommendation for the use of IVIg for the treatment of alloimmune HDN. Further studies are needed before the use of IVIg for the treatment of alloimmune HDN can be recommended, and should include blinding of the intervention by use of a placebo as well as sufficient sample size to assess the potential for serious adverse effects.\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": ""
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6451
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a significant cause of hospitalisation and death in young children. Positioning and mechanical ventilation have been regularly used to reduce respiratory distress and improve oxygenation in hospitalised patients. Due to the association of prone positioning (lying on the abdomen) with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) within the first six months, it is recommended that young infants be placed on their back (supine). However, prone positioning may be a non-invasive way of increasing oxygenation in individuals with acute respiratory distress, and offers a more significant survival advantage in those who are mechanically ventilated. There are substantial differences in respiratory mechanics between adults and infants. While the respiratory tract undergoes significant development within the first two years of life, differences in airway physiology between adults and children become less prominent by six to eight years old. However, there is a reduced risk of SIDS during artificial ventilation in hospitalised infants. Thus, an updated review focusing on positioning for infants and young children with ARDS is warranted. This is an update of a review published in 2005, 2009, and 2012.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of different body positions in hospitalised infants and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome aged between four weeks and 16 years.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL from January 2004 to July 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing two or more positions for the management of infants and children hospitalised with ARDS.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from each study. We resolved differences by consensus, or referred to a third contributor to arbitrate. We analysed bivariate outcomes using an odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We analysed continuous outcomes using a mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We used a fixed-effect model, unless heterogeneity was significant (I2 statistic > 50%), when we used a random-effects model.\nMain results\nWe included six trials: four cross-over trials, and two parallel randomised trials, with 198 participants aged between 4 weeks and 16 years, all but 15 of whom were mechanically ventilated. Four trials compared prone to supine positions. One trial compared the prone position to good-lung dependent (where the person lies on the side of the healthy lung, e.g. if the right lung was healthy, they were made to lie on the right side), and independent (or non-good-lung independent, where the person lies on the opposite side to the healthy lung, e.g. if the right lung was healthy, they were made to lie on the left side) position. One trial compared good-lung independent to good-lung dependent positions.\nWhen the prone (with ventilators) and supine positions were compared, there was no information on episodes of apnoea or mortality due to respiratory events. There was no conclusive result in oxygen saturation (SaO2; MD 0.40 mmHg, 95% CI -1.22 to 2.66; 1 trial, 30 participants; very low certainty evidence); blood gases, PCO2 (MD 3.0 mmHg, 95% CI -1.93 to 7.93; 1 trial, 99 participants; low certainty evidence), or PO2 (MD 2 mmHg, 95% CI -5.29 to 9.29; 1 trial, 99 participants; low certainty evidence); or lung function (PaO2/FiO2 ratio; MD 28.16 mmHg, 95% CI -9.92 to 66.24; 2 trials, 121 participants; very low certainty evidence). However, there was an improvement in oxygenation index (FiO2% X MPAW/ PaO2) with prone positioning in both the parallel trials (MD -2.42, 95% CI -3.60 to -1.25; 2 trials, 121 participants; very low certainty evidence), and the cross-over study (MD -8.13, 95% CI -15.01 to -1.25; 1 study, 20 participants).\nDerived indices of respiratory mechanics, such as tidal volume, respiratory rate, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) were reported. There was an apparent decrease in tidal volume between prone and supine groups in a parallel study (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.15; 1 study, 84 participants; very low certainty evidence). When prone and supine positions were compared in a cross-over study, there were no conclusive results in respiratory compliance (MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.24; 1 study, 10 participants); changes in PEEP (MD -0.70 cm H2O, 95% CI -2.72 to 1.32; 1 study, 10 participants); or resistance (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.04; 1 study, 10 participants).\nOne study reported adverse events. There were no conclusive results for potential harm between groups in extubation (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.54; 1 trial, 102 participants; very low certainty evidence); obstructions of the endotracheal tube (OR 5.20, 95% CI 0.24 to 111.09; 1 trial, 102 participants; very low certainty evidence); pressure ulcers (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.44; 1 trial, 102 participants; very low certainty evidence); and hypercapnia (high levels of arterial carbon dioxide; OR 3.06, 95% CI 0.12 to 76.88; 1 trial, 102 participants; very low certainty evidence).\nOne study (50 participants) compared supine positions to good-lung dependent and independent positions. There was no conclusive evidence that PaO2 was different between supine and good-lung dependent positioning (MD 3.44 mm Hg, 95% CI -23.12 to 30.00; 1 trial, 25 participants; very low certainty evidence). There was also no conclusive evidence for supine position and good-lung independent positioning (MD -2.78 mmHg, 95% CI -28.84, 23.28; 25 participants; very low certainty evidence); or between good-lung dependent and independent positioning (MD 6.22, 95% CI -21.25 to 33.69; 1 trial, 25 participants; very low certainty evidence).\nAs most trials did not describe how possible biases were addressed, the potential for bias in these findings is unclear.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough included studies suggest that prone positioning may offer some advantage, there was little evidence to make definitive recommendations. There appears to be low certainty evidence that positioning improves oxygenation in mechanically ventilated children with ARDS. Due to the increased risk of SIDS with prone positioning and lung injury with artificial ventilation, it is recommended that hospitalised infants and children should only be placed in this position while under continuous cardiorespiratory monitoring.\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 six trials, with a total of 198 participants aged from four weeks to 16 years. The majority were on mechanical ventilators. The timing of interventions ranged from 15 minutes after the child had been settled in a hospital bed, to a maximum of seven days over the duration of the intervention. Only a small number (n = 15) of the children did not have their breathing supported by a ventilator."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6452
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOvarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is a serious and potentially fatal complication of ovarian stimulation which affects 1% to 14% of all in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. A number of clinical studies with conflicting results have reported on the use of plasma expanders such as albumin, hydroxyethyl starch (HES), mannitol, polygeline and dextran as a possible intervention for the prevention of OHSS. Women with very high estradiol levels, high numbers of follicles or oocytes retrieved, and women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), are at particularly high risk of developing OHSS. Plasma expanders are not commonly used nowadays in ovarian hyperstimulation. This is mainly because clinical evidence on their effectiveness remains sparse, because of the low incidence of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and the simultaneous introduction of mild stimulation approaches, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols and the freeze-all strategy for the prevention of OHSS.\nObjectives\nTo review the effectiveness and safety of administration of volume expanders for the prevention of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in high-risk women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment cycles.\nSearch methods\nWe searched databases including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and trial registers to September 2015; no date restrictions were used as new comparators were included in this search. The references of relevant publications were also searched. We attempted to contact authors to provide or clarify data that were unclear from trial or abstract reports.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing volume expanders versus placebo or no treatment for the prevention of OHSS in high-risk women undergoing ovarian hyperstimulation as part of any assisted reproductive technique.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected the studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted relevant data. The primary review outcome was moderate or severe OHSS. Other outcomes were live birth, pregnancy and adverse events. We combined data to calculate pooled Peto odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each intervention. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison, using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs (1867 women) comparing human albumin (seven RCTs) or HES (two RCTs) or mannitol (one RCT) versus placebo or no treatment for prevention of OHSS. The evidence was very low to moderate quality for all comparisons. The main limitations were imprecision, poor reporting of study methods, and failure to blind outcome assessment.\nThere was evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous albumin on OHSS, though heterogeneity was substantial (Peto OR 0.67 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95, seven studies, 1452 high risk women; I² = 69%, very low quality evidence) . This suggests that if the rate of moderate or severe OHSS with no treatment is 12%, it will be about 9% (6% to12%) with the use of intravenous albumin. However, there was evidence of a detrimental effect on pregnancy rates (Peto OR 0.72 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94, I² = 42%, seven studies 1069 high risk women, moderate quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy is 40% without treatment, it will be about 32% (27% to 38%) with the use of albumin.\nThere was evidence of a beneficial effect of HES on OHSS (Peto OR 0.27 95% CI 0.12 to 0.59, I² = 0%, two studies, 272 women, very low quality evidence). This suggests that if the rate of moderate or severe OHSS with no treatment is 16%, it will be about 5% (2% to 10%) with the use of HES. There was no evidence of an effect on pregnancy rates (Peto OR 1.20 95% CI 0.49 to 2.93, one study, 168 women, very low quality evidence).\nThere was evidence of a beneficial effect of mannitol on OHSS (Peto OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.64, one study, 226 women with PCOS, low quality evidence). This means that if the risk of moderate or severe OHSS with no treatment is 52%, it will be about 29% (19% to 41%) with mannitol. There was no evidence of an effect on pregnancy rates (Peto OR 0.85 95% CI 0.47 to 1.55; one study, 226 women, low quality evidence).\nLive birth rates were not reported in any of the studies. Adverse events appeared to be uncommon, but were too poorly reported to reach any firm conclusions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence suggests that the plasma expanders assessed in this review (human albumin, HES and mannitol) reduce rates of moderate and severe OHSS in women at high risk. Adverse events appear to be uncommon, but were too poorly reported to reach any firm conclusions, and there were no data on live birth. However, there was evidence that human albumin reduces pregnancy rates. While there was no evidence that HES, or mannitol had any influence on pregnancy rates, the evidence of effectiveness was based on very few trials which need to be confirmed in additional, larger randomised controlled trials (RCTs) before they should be considered for routine use in clinical practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "OHSS is a serious complication of ovarian stimulation, which affects up to 14% of ART cycles. It is characterised by enlarged ovaries following excessive hormonal stimulation resulting in a shift of fluid from the blood vessels to the extracellular space. It can cause abdominal bloating, blood clots (thrombosis) and reduced perfusion of vital organs like the kidneys and liver. Several clinical studies have reported on the use of intravenous fluids such as albumin and hydroxyethyl starch (HES), as a possible way of preventing OHSS."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6453
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFunctional Abdominal Pain Disorders (FAPDs) present a considerable burden to paediatric patients, impacting quality of life, school attendance and causing higher rates of anxiety and depression disorders. There are no international guidelines for the management of this condition. A previous Cochrane Review in 2011 found no evidence to support the use of antidepressants in this context.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for FAPDs in children and adolescents.\nSearch methods\nIn this updated review, we searched The Cochrane Library, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and two clinical trial registers from inception until February 3th, 2020. We also updated our search of databases of ongoing research, reference lists and 'grey literature' from inception to February 3th, 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antidepressants to placebo, to no treatment or to any other intervention, in children aged 4 to 18 years with a FAPD diagnosis as per the Rome or any other defined criteria (as defined by the authors). The primary outcomes of interest included treatment success (as defined by the authors), pain severity, pain frequency and withdrawal due to adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nAll citations were reviewed independently by two authors, with disagreement solved with a third-party arbiter. All potential studies had full texts reviewed, and once again, independent decisions made, with disagreement solved by consensus. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment was completed independently following Cochrane standards. Where homogenous data was available, meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. GRADE assessement of the certainty of the evidence was performed.\nMain results\nThree studies were eligible for inclusion: two using amitriptyline (AMI) and one using citalopram. The studies recruited 223 children diagnosed with either Rome II or Rome III criteria.\nFor the primary outcome of treatment success, two studies used report of success on a symptom-based Likert scale, with either a two-point reduction or the two lowest levels defined as success. The other study defined success as a 15% improvement in Quality of life (QOL) rating scales, which could not be included in the meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity of the outcome measure. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of antidepressants compared with placebo on treatment success (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.87 - 1.56]; 2 studies, 205 participants; low certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence due to significant imprecision due to extremely sparse data.\nWe are uncertain whether children were more likely to withdraw due to adverse events with antidepressants or placebo, RR 3.80 (95% CI 0.61 - 23.57, very serious imprecision due to low events and number of participants. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed effect model and analysing just for AMI found no change in this result. Due to heterogeneous and limited reporting, no further meta-analysis was possible for other outcomes of pain severity or frequency.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of antidepressants on treatment success of FAPDs in childhood when compared with placebo (low certainty evidence). The small number of participants in the studies and low number of withdrawals did not enable us to determine reliably whether children are likely to stop taking medication due to adverse events (low certainty evidence). There is currently very little evidence to support clinical decision-making regarding the use of these medications. Further studies must consider sample size, homogenous and relevant outcome measures and longer follow up.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review is up-to-date as of February 2020."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6454
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMany people with schizophrenia do not achieve satisfactory improvements in their mental state, particularly the symptom of hearing voices (hallucinations), with medical treatment.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effects of Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.\nSearch methods\nIn December 2016, November 2018 and April 2019, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including registries of clinical trials) was searched, review authors checked references of all identified relevant reports to identify more studies and contacted authors of trials for additional information.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised clinical trials focusing on Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CIs. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in; mental state, insight, global state, quality of life and functioning as well as adverse effects and leaving the study early.\nMain results\nWe found 14 potentially relevant references for three studies (participants = 195) comparing Avatar Therapy with two other interventions; treatment as usual or supportive counselling. Both Avatar Therapy and supportive counselling were given in addition (add-on) to the participants' normal care. All of the studies had high risk of bias across one or more domains for methodology and, for other risks of bias, authors from one of the studies were involved in the development of the avatar systems on trial and in another trial, authors had patents on the avatar system pending.\n1. Avatar Therapy compared with treatment as usual\nWhen Avatar Therapy was compared with treatment as usual average endpoint Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale – Positive (PANSS-P) scores were not different between treatment groups (MD –1.93, 95% CI –5.10 to 1.24; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). A measure of insight (Revised Beliefs about Voices Questionnaire; BAVQ-R) showed an effect in favour of Avatar Therapy (MD –5.97, 95% CI –10.98 to –0.96; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). No one was rehospitalised in either group in the short term (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI –0.20 to 0.20; studies = 1, participants = 19; low-certainty evidence). Numbers leaving the study early from each group were not clearly different – although more did leave from the Avatar Therapy group (6/14 versus 0/12; RR 11.27, 95% CI 0.70 to 181.41; studies = 1, participants = 26; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in anxiety between treatment groups (RR 5.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 89.80; studies = 1, participants = 19; low-certainty evidence). For quality of life, average Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (QLESQ-SF) scores favoured Avatar Therapy (MD 9.99, 95% CI 3.89 to 16.09; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported data for functioning.\n2. Avatar Therapy compared with supportive counselling\nWhen Avatar Therapy was compared with supportive counselling (all short-term), general mental state (Psychotic Symptom Rating Scale (PSYRATS)) scores favoured the Avatar Therapy group (MD –4.74, 95% CI –8.01 to –1.47; studies = 1, participants = 124; low-certainty evidence). For insight (BAVQ-R), there was a small effect in favour of Avatar Therapy (MD –8.39, 95% CI –14.31 to –2.47; studies = 1, participants = 124; low-certainty evidence). Around 20% of each group left the study early (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.89; studies = 1, participants = 150; moderate-certainty evidence). Analysis of quality of life scores (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA)) showed no clear difference between groups (MD 2.69, 95% CI –1.48 to 6.86; studies = 1, participants = 120; low-certainty evidence). No data were available for rehospitalisation rates, adverse events or functioning.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur analyses of available data shows few, if any, consistent effects of Avatar Therapy for people living with schizophrenia who experience auditory hallucinations. Where there are effects, or suggestions of effects, we are uncertain because of their risk of bias and their unclear clinical meaning. The theory behind Avatar Therapy is compelling but the practice needs testing in large, long, well-designed, well-reported randomised trials undertaken with help from – but not under the direction of – Avatar Therapy pioneers.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Trials\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Four studies met our inclusion criteria, three of which provided useable data and one is still underway. The reliability of the evidence for the three included studies was very low to low. All data were limited to six weeks' treatment and one week' follow-up and, in some cases, data were not usable (we contacted the authors). All the reported data are just for the short-term period of trials and it is apparent that we need more studies with medium- to long-term periods to be able to estimate the rate of Avatar Therapy's effectiveness."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6455
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSlow-release fluoride devices have been investigated as a potentially cost-effective method of reducing dental caries in people with high risk of disease. This is the second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2006 and previously updated in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of slow-release fluoride devices on preventing, arresting, or reversing the progression of carious lesions on all surface types of primary (deciduous) and permanent teeth.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 23 January 2018); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 23 January 2018); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 23 January 2018); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 23 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials (23 January 2018). We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nParallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing slow-release fluoride devices with an alternative fluoride treatment, placebo, or no intervention in all age groups. The main outcome measures sought were changes in numbers of decayed, missing, and filled teeth or surfaces (DMFT/DMFS in permanent teeth or dmft/dmfs in primary teeth), and progression of carious lesions through enamel and into dentine.\nData collection and analysis\nWe conducted data collection and analysis using standard Cochrane review methods. At least two review authors independently performed all the key steps in the review such as screening of abstracts, application of inclusion criteria, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We resolved discrepancies through discussions or arbitration by a third or fourth review author.\nMain results\nWe found no evidence comparing slow-release fluoride devices against other types of fluoride therapy.\nWe found only one double-blind RCT involving 174 children comparing a slow-release fluoride device (glass beads with fluoride were attached to buccal surfaces of right maxillary first permanent molar teeth) against control (glass beads without fluoride were attached to buccal surfaces of right maxillary first permanent molar teeth). This study was assessed to be at high risk of bias. The study recruited children from seven schools in an area of deprivation that had low levels of fluoride in the water. The mean age at the beginning of the study was 8.8 years and at the termination was 10.9 years. DMFT in permanent teeth or dmft in primary teeth was greater than one at the start of the study and greater than one million colony-forming units of Streptococcus mutans per millilitre of saliva.\nAlthough 132 children were still included in the trial at the two-year completion point, examination and statistical analysis was performed on only the 63 children (31 in intervention group, 32 in control group) who had retained the beads (retention rate was 47.7% at 2 years). Among these 63 children, caries increment was reported to be statistically significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (DMFT: mean difference -0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.23 to -0.21; DMFS: mean difference -1.52, 95% CI -2.68 to -0.36 (very low-quality evidence)). Although this difference was clinically significant, it only holds true for those children who maintain the fluoride beads; over 50% of children did not retain the beads.\nHarms were not reported within the trial report. Evidence for other outcomes sought in this review (progression to of caries lesion, dental pain, healthcare utilisation data) were also not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to determine the caries-inhibiting effect of slow-release fluoride glass beads. The body of evidence available is of very low quality and there is a potential overestimation of benefit to the average child. The applicability of the findings to the wider population is unclear; the study had included children from a deprived area that had low levels of fluoride in drinking water, and were considered at high risk of caries. In addition, the evidence was only obtained from children who still had the bead attached at 2 years (48% of all available children); children who had lost their slow-release fluoride devices earlier might not have benefited as much from the devices.\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 conducted this review to assess the effects of different types of slow-release fluoride devices on preventing, stopping, or reversing the progression of tooth decay on all surface types of deciduous ('baby') and permanent teeth."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6456
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nApproximately 600 million children of preschool and school age are anaemic worldwide. It is estimated that at least half of the cases are due to iron deficiency. Point-of-use fortification of foods with micronutrient powders (MNP) has been proposed as a feasible intervention to prevent and treat anaemia. It refers to the addition of iron alone or in combination with other vitamins and minerals in powder form, to energy-containing foods (excluding beverages) at home or in any other place where meals are to be consumed. MNPs can be added to foods either during or after cooking or immediately before consumption without the explicit purpose of improving the flavour or colour.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of point-of-use fortification of foods with iron-containing MNP alone, or in combination with other vitamins and minerals on nutrition, health and development among children at preschool (24 to 59 months) and school (five to 12 years) age, compared with no intervention, a placebo or iron-containing supplements.\nSearch methods\nIn December 2016, we searched the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, CINAHL, LILACS, IBECS, Popline and SciELO. We also searched two trials registers in April 2017, and contacted relevant organisations to identify ongoing and unpublished trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs trials with either individual or cluster randomisation. Participants were children aged between 24 months and 12 years at the time of intervention. For trials with children outside this age range, we included studies where we were able to disaggregate the data for children aged 24 months to 12 years, or when more than half of the participants were within the requisite age range. We included trials with apparently healthy children; however, we included studies carried out in settings where anaemia and iron deficiency are prevalent, and thus participants may have had these conditions at baseline.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of trials against the inclusion criteria, extracted data from included trials, assessed the risk of bias of the included trials and graded the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 13 studies involving 5810 participants from Latin America, Africa and Asia. We excluded 38 studies and identified six ongoing/unpublished trials. All trials compared the provision of MNP for point-of-use fortification with no intervention or placebo. No trials compared the effects of MNP versus iron-containing supplements (as drops, tablets or syrup).\nThe sample sizes in the included trials ranged from 90 to 2193 participants. Six trials included participants younger than 59 months of age only, four included only children aged 60 months or older, and three trials included children both younger and older than 59 months of age.\nMNPs contained from two to 18 vitamins and minerals. The iron doses varied from 2.5 mg to 30 mg of elemental iron. Four trials reported giving 10 mg of elemental iron as sodium iron ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (NaFeEDTA), chelated ferrous sulphate or microencapsulated ferrous fumarate. Three trials gave 12.5 mg of elemental iron as microencapsulated ferrous fumarate. Three trials gave 2.5 mg or 2.86 mg of elemental iron as NaFeEDTA. One trial gave 30 mg and one trial provided 14 mg of elemental iron as microencapsulated ferrous fumarate, while one trial gave 28 mg of iron as ferrous glycine phosphate.\nIn comparison with receiving no intervention or a placebo, children receiving iron-containing MNP for point-of-use fortification of foods had lower risk of anaemia prevalence ratio (PR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.88, 10 trials, 2448 children; moderate-quality evidence) and iron deficiency (PR 0.35, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.47, 5 trials, 1364 children; moderate-quality evidence) and had higher haemoglobin (mean difference (MD) 3.37 g/L, 95% CI 0.94 to 5.80, 11 trials, 2746 children; low-quality evidence).\nOnly one trial with 115 children reported on all-cause mortality (zero cases; low-quality evidence). There was no effect on diarrhoea (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.78, 2 trials, 366 children; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nPoint-of-use fortification of foods with MNPs containing iron reduces anaemia and iron deficiency in preschool- and school-age children. However, information on mortality, morbidity, developmental outcomes and adverse effects is still scarce.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background to the question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Approximately one billion people worldwide are deficient in at least one vitamin or mineral (also known of micronutrients). Iron, vitamin A, zinc and iodine deficiencies are very frequent among children of preschool (aged 24 months to less than 5 years) and school age (5 to 12 years of age), limiting their health and daily physical performance. Anaemia, the condition in which red blood cells have limited capacity to carry oxygen, frequently results after prolonged iron deficiency.\nPoint-of-use fortification with powdered vitamins and minerals has been proposed as a public health intervention to reduce micronutrient deficiencies in children. In this process, a powdered premix containing iron, and possibly other vitamins and minerals, is added to foods either during or after cooking, or immediately before consumption to improve their nutritious value but not their flavour or colour. In some cases, point-of-use fortification is also known as home fortification."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6457
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, pressure sores, or pressure injuries, are localised damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue, usually caused by intense or long-term pressure, shear, or friction. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has been widely used in the treatment of pressure ulcers, but its effect needs to be further clarified. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of NPWT for treating adult with pressure ulcers in any care setting.\nSearch methods\nOn 13 January 2022, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP Search Portal for ongoing and unpublished studies and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of NPWT in the treatment of adults with pressure ulcers (stage II or above).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently conducted study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) methodology. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion with a third review author.\nMain results\nThis review included eight RCTs with a total of 327 randomised participants. Six of the eight included studies were deemed to be at a high risk of bias in one or more risk of bias domains, and evidence for all outcomes of interest was deemed to be of very low certainty. Most studies had small sample sizes (range: 12 to 96, median: 37 participants).\nFive studies compared NPWT with dressings, but only one study reported usable primary outcome data (complete wound healing and adverse events). This study had only 12 participants and there were very few events; only one participant was healed in the study (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 61.74, very low-certainly evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with adverse events in the NPWT group and the dressing group, but the evidence for this outcome was also assessed as very low certainty (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.44, very low-certainty evidence). Changes in ulcer size, pressure ulcer severity, cost, and pressure ulcer scale for healing (PUSH) sores were also reported, but we were unable to draw conclusions due to the low certainly of the evidence.\nOne study compared NPWT with a series of gel treatments, but this study provided no usable data. Another study compared NPWT with 'moist wound healing', which did not report primary outcome data. Changes in ulcer size and cost were reported in this study, but we assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty; One study compared NPWT combined with internet-plus home care with standard care, but no primary outcome data were reported. Changes in ulcer size, pain, and dressing change times were reported, but we also assessed the evidence as being of very low certainty.\nNone of the included studies reported time to complete healing, health-related quality of life, wound infection, or wound recurrence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe efficacy, safety, and acceptability of NPWT in treating pressure ulcers compared to usual care are uncertain due to the lack of key data on complete wound healing, adverse events, time to complete healing, and cost-effectiveness.\nCompared with usual care, using NPWT may speed up the reduction of pressure ulcer size and severity of pressure ulcer, reduce pain, and dressing change times. Still, trials were small, poorly described, had short follow-up times, and with a high risk of bias; any conclusions drawn from the current evidence should be interpreted with considerable caution. In the future, high-quality research with large sample sizes and low risk of bias is still needed to further verify the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of NPWT in the treatment of pressure ulcers. Future researchers need to recognise the importance of complete and accurate reporting of clinically important outcomes such as the complete healing rate, healing time, and adverse events.\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 eight studies published between 2002 and 2022 involving a total of 327 participants with pressure ulcers at Category/Stage III or above. Five studies compared NPWT with dressings. Only one study with a total of 12 participants reported usable primary outcome data (complete wound healing; adverse events) and found that there was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with complete wound healing and adverse events in the NPWT group and the dressing group. Three studies reported that NPWT may reduce the size of pressure ulcers compared with dressing, but the results were not reported clearly and the certainty of evidence was very low. One study with a total of 60 participants compared NPWT combined with Internet-plus home care compared with standard care. This study reports that NPWT combined with Internet-plus home care may reduce the surface area of ulcers, pain, and dressing change times compared with standard care, but due to the risk of bias in the study, we downgraded the certainty of evidence to a very low level. One study compared NPWT with a series of topical treatments and one study compared it with what was described only as 'moist wound healing', but no useful data were obtained."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6458
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUrinary stone disease is a common condition characterised by increasing prevalence and high rates of recurrence. Observational studies have reported that increased water intake played a role in the prevention of urinary stone formation but with limited strength of evidence.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of increased water intake with standard water intake for the prevention of urinary stone formation in participants with or without a history of urinary stones.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE (Ovid) and the Cochrane Library to 15 October 2019. We handsearched review articles, clinical trial registries, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We did not apply any restrictions to publication language or publication status.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at the benefits and harms of increased water intake versus standard water intake for the prevention of urinary stone formation in participants with or without a history of urinary stones.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We pooled dichotomous outcomes (e.g. incidence/recurrence rate of urinary stones; adverse events) using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We calculated hazard ratio (HRs) and corresponding 95% CIs to assess the intervention effect for time-to-event outcomes. We assessed the certainty of the evidence by using the GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nOur search identified no RCTs investigating the role of increased water intake for the prevention of urinary stone formation in participants with no history of urinary stones (primary prevention). We found one RCT assessing the effects of increased water intake versus standard water intake for the prevention of urinary stone formation in people with a history of urinary stones (secondary prevention). This trial randomised 220 participants (110 participants in the intervention group with increased water intake and 110 in the control group with standard water intake). Increased water intake was defined as achieving a urine volume of at least 2.0 L per day by drinking water.\nBased on this study, increased water intake may decrease stone recurrences (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.84; 199 participants; low-certainty evidence); this corresponds to 149 fewer (43 fewer to 205 fewer) stone recurrences per 1000 participants with 270 stone recurrence per 1000 participants over five years in the control group.\nIncreased water intake may also prolong the time to urinary stone recurrence compared to standard water intake (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.79; 199 participants; low-certainty evidence); based on a stone recurrence rate of 270 per 1000 participants over five years, this corresponds to 152 fewer (209 fewer to 50 fewer) recurrences per 1000 participants.\nFor both outcomes we downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision. We found no evidence for the outcome of adverse events\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no RCT evidence on the role of increased water intake for primary prevention of urinary stones. For secondary prevention, increased water intake achieving a urine volume of at least 2.0 L/day may reduce urinary stone recurrence and prolong time to recurrence for people with a history of urinary stone disease. However, our confidence in these findings is limited. We did not find evidence for adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The certainty of evidence for both outcomes for which we found evidence was low. This means that the true results may be quite different."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6459
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNeuropathic pain, which is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, may be central or peripheral in origin. Neuropathic pain often includes symptoms such as burning or shooting sensations, abnormal sensitivity to normally painless stimuli, or an increased sensitivity to normally painful stimuli. Neuropathic pain is a common symptom in many diseases of the nervous system. Opioid drugs, including morphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for morphine; other opioids are considered in separate reviews.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing morphine (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe identified five randomised, double-blind, cross-over studies with treatment periods of four to seven weeks, involving 236 participants in suitably characterised neuropathic pain; 152 (64%) participants completed all treatment periods. Oral morphine was titrated to maximum daily doses of 90 mg to 180 mg or the maximum tolerated dose, and then maintained for the remainder of the study. Participants had experienced moderate or severe neuropathic pain for at least three months. Included studies involved people with painful diabetic neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia criteria, phantom limb or postamputation pain, and lumbar radiculopathy. Exclusions were typically people with other significant comorbidity or pain from other causes.\nOverall, we judged the studies to be at low risk of bias, but there were concerns over small study size and the imputation method used for participants who withdrew from the studies, both of which could lead to overestimation of treatment benefits and underestimation of harm.\nThere was insufficient or no evidence for the primary outcomes of interest for efficacy or harm. Four studies reported an approximation of moderate pain improvement (any pain-related outcome indicating some improvement) comparing morphine with placebo in different types of neuropathic pain. We pooled these data in an exploratory analysis. Moderate improvement was experienced by 63% (87/138) of participants with morphine and 36% (45/125) with placebo; the risk difference (RD) was 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.38, fixed-effects analysis) and the NNT 3.7 (2.6 to 6.5). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low because of the small number of events; available information did not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different was very high. A similar exploratory analysis for substantial pain relief on three studies (177 participants) showed no difference between morphine and placebo.\nAll-cause withdrawals in four studies occurred in 16% (24/152) of participants with morphine and 12% (16/137) with placebo. The RD was 0.04 (-0.04 to 0.12, random-effects analysis). Adverse events were inconsistently reported, more common with morphine than with placebo, and typical of opioids. There were two serious adverse events, one with morphine, and one with a combination of morphine and nortriptyline. No deaths were reported. These outcomes were assessed as very low quality because of the limited number of participants and events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that morphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence was of very low quality. This means that the research did not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is very high. Small studies like those in this review tend to overestimate results of treatment compared to the effects found in larger, better designed studies. There were other problems that might lead to over-optimistic results. The very low quality evidence and the lack of any important benefit mean that we need new, longer-lasting, large trials before we will know if morphine is useful for the treatment of neuropathic pain."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6460
|
[
{
"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: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Is terlipressin better than inactive placebo/no treatment for people with hepatorenal syndrome?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6461
|
[
{
"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 obstruction. Prevention is therefore important. In adults, numerous randomised clinical trials have demonstrated benefits of non-selective beta-blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation as primary prevention in decreasing the risk of variceal haemorrhage. In children, band ligation, beta-blockers, and sclerotherapy have been proposed as alternatives for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding. However, primary prophylaxis is not the current standard of care in children because it is unknown whether those treatments are of benefit or cause harm when used for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children and adolescents 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 (27 April 2020). We scrutinised the reference lists of retrieved publications, and performed a manual search from the main paediatric gastroenterology and hepatology conferences (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN) abstract books from 2008 to 2019. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA, EMA, and WHO for ongoing clinical trials. There were no language or document type restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. If the search for randomised clinical trials retrieved quasi-randomised and observational studies, then we read them through to extract information on harms.\nData collection and analysis\nWe planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials by standard Cochrane methodologies. We planned to assess risk of bias and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence per outcome. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and liver-related morbidity, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were oesophageal variceal bleeding and adverse events not considered serious. We planned to analyse data with intention-to-treat. We planned to use Review Manager 5 to analyse the data.\nMain results\nWe found no randomised clinical trials assessing band ligation versus sclerotherapy for primary prophylaxis of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nRandomised clinical trials assessing the benefits or harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy 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 band ligation versus sclerotherapy 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 these 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 conduct a systematic review of randomised clinical trials to assess the benefits and harms of band ligation versus sclerotherapy for prevention of oesophageal variceal bleeding in children with chronic liver disease or portal vein thrombosis (blockage or narrowing of the portal vein (the blood vessel that brings blood to the liver from the intestines) by a blood clot). We searched for trials to 27 April 2020."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6462
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a common adverse effect in children with cancer. Due to the high relative risk of infections and infectious complications, standard care for children with cancer and febrile neutropenia consists of routine hospitalization and parenteral administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, there are less serious causes of febrile neutropenia; in a subgroup of these children, lengthy in-hospital treatment might be unnecessary. Various research groups have studied the adjustment of standard care to shorten in-hospital treatment for children with cancer and febrile neutropenia at low risk for bacterial infections. However, most of these studies were not done in a randomized matter.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate whether early discharge (mean/median of less than five days) from in-hospital treatment was not inferior to non-early discharge (mean/median of five days or more) and whether very early discharge (mean/median of less than 24 hours) was not inferior to early discharge, non-early discharge, or a combination of these, in children with cancer and febrile neutropenia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2015, issue 11), MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1945 to December 2015), EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to December 2015), the reference lists of relevant articles and review articles, and various conference proceedings (dependent on availability from 2005 to 2010 to 2013 to 2015). We scanned the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Register, the National Institute of Health Register for ongoing trials, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 9 January 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials in which children with cancer and febrile neutropenia were divided in groups with different times of discharge.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods of Cochrane and its Childhood Cancer Group. Two independent review authors performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We entered data extracted from the included studies into Review Manager 5 and undertook analyses according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nWe included two randomized controlled trials assessing very early, early, non-early (or a combination of these) discharge in children with cancer and febrile neutropenia. We graded the evidence as low quality; we downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. One study, Santolaya 2004, consisted of 149 randomized low-risk episodes and compared early discharge (mean/median of less than five days) to non-early discharge (mean/median of five days or more). This study found no clear evidence of difference in treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 3.50, P value = 0.89 for rehospitalization or adjustment of antimicrobial treatment, or both; Fischer's exact P value = 0.477 for death) or duration of treatment (mean difference -0.3 days, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.62, P value = 0.52 for any antimicrobial treatment; mean difference -0.5 days, 95% CI -1.36 to 0.36, P value = 0.25 for intravenous antimicrobial treatment; mean difference 0.2 days, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.91, P value = 0.58 for oral antimicrobial treatment). Costs were lower in the early discharge group (mean difference USD -265, 95% CI USD -403.14 to USD -126.86, P value = 0.0002). The second included study, Brack 2012, consisted of 62 randomized low-risk episodes and compared very early discharge (mean/median of less than 24 hours) to early discharge (mean/median of less than five days). This study also found no clear evidence of difference in treatment failure (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.89, P value = 0.34 for rehospitalization or adjustment of antimicrobial treatment (or both); Fischer's exact P value = 0.557 for death). Regarding duration of treatment, median duration of intravenous antimicrobial treatment was shorter in the very early discharge group (Wilcoxon's P value ≤ 0.001, stated in the study) and median duration of oral antimicrobial treatment was shorter in the early discharge group (Wilcoxon's P ≤ 0.001, stated in the study) as compared to one another. However, there was no clear evidence of difference in median duration of any antimicrobial treatment (Wilcoxon's P value = 0.34, stated in the study). Costs were not assessed in this study. Neither of the included studies assessed quality of life. Meta-analysis was not possible as the included studies assessed different discharge moments and used different risk stratification models.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVery limited data were available regarding the safety of early discharge compared to non-early discharge from in-hospital treatment in children with cancer and febrile neutropenia and a low risk for invasive infection. The absence of clear evidence of differences in both studies could be due to lack of power.\nEvidently, there are still profound gaps regarding very early and early discharge in children with cancer and febrile neutropenia. Future studies that assess this subject should have a large sample size and aim to establish uniform and objective criteria regarding the identification of a low-risk febrile neutropenic episode.\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": "In conclusion, regarding both rehospitalization or adjustment of antibiotics (or both) and death, evidence was fairly limited; however, there was no evidence that early discharge was less safe than non-early discharge or very early discharge was less safe than early discharge of children with cancer and fever during neutropenia and a low risk for invasive bacterial infection. Future larger trials are needed to confirm or contradict these results."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6463
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMore than 7.5 million children younger than age five living in low- and middle-income countries die every year. The World Health Organization (WHO) developed the integrated management of childhood illness (IMCI) strategy to reduce mortality and morbidity and to improve quality of care by improving the delivery of a variety of curative and preventive medical and behavioral interventions at health facilities, at home, and in the community.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of programs that implement the IMCI strategy in terms of death, nutritional status, quality of care, coverage with IMCI deliverables, and satisfaction of beneficiaries.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE, Ovid; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EbscoHost; the Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Virtual Health Library (VHL); the WHO Library & Information Networks for Knowledge Database (WHOLIS); the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science; Population Information Online (POPLINE); the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP); and the Global Health, Ovid and Health Management, ProQuest database. We performed searches until 30 June 2015 and supplemented these by searching revised bibliographies and by contacting experts to identify ongoing and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled before-after (CBA) studies with at least two intervention and two control sites evaluating the generic IMCI strategy or its adaptation in children younger than age five, and including at minimum efforts to improve health care worker skills for case management. We excluded studies in which IMCI was accompanied by other interventions including conditional cash transfers, food supplementation, and employment. The comparison group received usual health services without provision of IMCI.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened searches, selected trials, and extracted, analysed and tabulated data. We used inverse variance for cluster trials and an intracluster co-efficient of 0.01 when adjustment had not been made in the primary study. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nTwo cluster-randomised trials (India and Bangladesh) and two controlled before-after studies (Tanzania and India) met our inclusion criteria. Strategies included training of health care staff, management strengthening of health care systems (all four studies), and home visiting (two studies). The two studies from India included care packages targeting the neonatal period.\nOne trial in Bangladesh estimated that child mortality may be 13% lower with IMCI, but the confidence interval (CI) included no effect (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.10; 5090 participants; low-certainty evidence). One CBA study in Tanzania gave almost identical estimates (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05; 1932 participants).\nOne trial in India examined infant and neonatal mortality by implementing the integrated management of neonatal and childhood illness (IMNCI) strategy including post-natal home visits. Neonatal and infant mortality may be lower in the IMNCI group compared with the control group (infant mortality hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.94; neonatal mortality HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.03; one trial, 60,480 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nWe estimated the effect of IMCI on any mortality measured by combining infant and child mortality in the one IMCI and the one IMNCI trial. Mortality may be reduced by IMCI (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93; two trials, 65,570 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nTwo trials (India, Bangladesh) evaluated nutritional status and noted that there may be little or no effect on stunting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06; 5242 participants, two trials; low-certainty evidence) and there is probably little or no effect on wasting (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.25; two trials, 4288 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).The Tanzania CBA study showed similar results.\nInvestigators measured quality of care by observing prescribing for common illnesses at health facilities (727 observations, two studies; very low-certainty evidence) and by observing prescribing by lay health care workers (1051 observations, three studies; very low-certainty evidence). We could not confirm a consistent effect on prescribing at health facilities or by lay health care workers, as certainty of the evidence was very low.\nFor coverage of IMCI deliverables, we examined vaccine and vitamin A coverage, appropriate care seeking, and exclusive breast feeding. Two trials (India, Bangladesh) estimated vaccine coverage for measles and reported that there is probably little or no effect on measles vaccine coverage (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05; two trials, 4895 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), with similar effects seen in the Tanzania CBA study. Two studies measured the third dose of diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus vaccine; and two measured vitamin A coverage, all providing little or no evidence of increased coverage with IMCI.\nFour studies (2 from India, and 1 each from Tanzania and Bangladesh) reported appropriate care seeking and derived information from careful questioning of mothers about recent illness. Some studies on effects of IMCI may report better care seeking behavior, but others do not report this.\nAll four studies recorded maternal responses on exclusive breast feeding. They provided mixed results and very low-certainty evidence. Therefore, we do not know whether IMCI impacts exclusive breast feeding.\nNo studies reported on the satisfaction of mothers and service users.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe mix of interventions examined in research studies evaluating the IMCI strategy varies, and some studies include specific inputs to improve neonatal health. Most studies were conducted in South Asia. Implementing the integrated management of childhood illness strategy may reduce child mortality, and packages that include interventions for the neonatal period may reduce infant mortality. IMCI may have little or no effect on nutritional status and probably has little or no effect on vaccine coverage. Maternal care seeking behavior may be more appropriate with IMCI, but study results have been mixed, providing evidence of very low certainty about whether IMCI has effects on adherence to exclusive breast feeding.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "More than 7.5 million children globally die each year before reaching the age of five. Most are from poor communities and live in the poorest countries. These children are more likely than others to suffer from malnutrition and from infections such as neonatal sepsis, measles, diarrhoea, malaria, and pneumonia.\nEffective strategies to prevent and treat sick children are available but do not reach them. One reason for this is that health care services are often too far away or too expensive. Health facilities in these settings often lack supplies and well-trained health care workers. In addition, ill children may have several health problems at the same time, and this can make diagnosis and treatment difficult for health care workers.\nIn the 1990s, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed a strategy called integrated management of childhood illness (IMCI) to address these problems. This strategy aims to prevent death and disease while improving the quality of care for ill children up to the age of five. It consists of three parts.\n• Improving the skills of health care workers by providing training and guidelines.\n• Improving how health care systems are organized and managed, including access to supplies.\n• Visiting homes and communities to promote good child rearing practices and good nutrition, while encouraging parents to bring their children to a clinic when the children are ill.\nThe WHO encourages countries to adapt the IMCI strategy to their own national settings. Types of childhood illnesses prioritised and ways in which services are delivered may vary from country to country."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
6464
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCrohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the gastrointestinal tract, and immune response modulation is the main treatment strategy to induce remission in active CD. Certolizumab pegol (CZP) is a tumor necrosis factor-alfa (TNF-α) inhibitor which regulates impaired immune response.\nObjectives\nThe primary objectives were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CZP for the induction of remission in CD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD group specialized register, trials registers and other sources from inception to 28 January 2019. Moreover, we contacted the pharmaceutical company that manufactures CZP.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials comparing CZP with placebo or no treatment in active CD patients.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The main outcomes selected for GRADE analysis were clinical remission at week 8 (Crohn’s Disease Activity Index [CDAI] ≤150), clinical response at week 8 (CDAI reduction ≥ 100 or clinical remission), and serious adverse events. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method was applied for the statistical analyses. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI).\nMain results\nFour studies involving 1485 participants with moderate to severe CD met the inclusion criteria and were used in the meta-analyses. All studies included active CD patients with CDAI ranging from 220 to 450. Most patients were adults over 18 years of age. One study was identified as high risk of bias due to a non-identical placebo while the other studies were judged to be at low risk of bias.\nCZP (100 mg to 400 mg every 2 to 4 weeks) was shown to be superior to placebo for achieving clinical remission at week 8 (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.66; moderate certainty evidence). The raw numbers of participants achieving clinical remission at week 8 were 26.9% (225/835) and 19.8% (129/650) in the CZP and the placebo groups, respectively.\nCZP was shown to be superior to placebo for achieving clinical response at week 8 (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.53; moderate certainty evidence). In raw numbers, clinical response at week 8 was achieved in 40.2% (336/835) and 30.9% (201/650) of participants in the CZP and the placebo groups, respectively.\nIn raw numbers, serious adverse events were observed in 8.7% (73/835) and 6.2% (40/650) of participants in the CZP and the placebo groups, respectively (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.97; moderate certainty evidence). Serious adverse events included worsening Crohn's disease, infections, and malignancy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate certainty evidence suggests that CZP is effective for induction of clinical remission and clinical response in participants with active CD patients. It is uncertain whether the risk of serious adverse events differs between CZP and placebo as the 95% CI includes the possibility of a small decrease or doubling of events. Future studies are needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of CZP in CD patients.\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": "Moderate certainty evidence suggests that certolizumab pegol is effective for induction of clinical remission and clinical response in people with active Crohn's disease. It is uncertain whether the risk of serious side effects differs between certolizumab pegol and placebo. Future studies are needed to evaluate the long-term benefits and harms of certolizumab pegol in people with Crohn's disease."
}
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.