dataset
stringclasses 1
value | id
stringlengths 1
5
| messages
listlengths 2
2
|
|---|---|---|
query-laysum
|
7174
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAdequate nutrients early in life promote cognitive development and are critical for proper growth and functioning. The effect of individual nutrients consumed through food is often not the same as consuming the same nutrients in supplementary form due to 'food synergy', the biological and chemical interrelations that occur between nutrients. Animal-source foods, such as eggs, meat, fish, and dairy, are energy dense and contain multiple micronutrients and essential fatty acids with high bioavailability. The benefits of animal-source foods may include higher food synergy relative to fortified foods as well as decreasing dependence on external suppliers of fortified foods.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of animal-source foods compared to any other feeding interventions or no intervention in improving growth and developmental outcomes in children aged 6 to 59 months.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, 18 other databases, and three trials registers up to August 2018. We also contacted authors and known experts in the field for assistance in identifying ongoing or unpublished data, and searched the reference lists of included studies and reviews, and websites of relevant organizations, for other studies that may not have been captured by our electronic searches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials of any duration, where children between 5 months and 59 months (6 years) of age were provided with an animal-source food (e.g. consumption of milk, meat, or eggs), prepared with any cooking method, compared with any intervention or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility using prespecified criteria, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and graded the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nStudy characteristics\nWe included 6 studies that analyzed data from 3036 children aged 5 to 50 months. The studies were conducted in China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Guatemala, Pakistan, the USA, and Zambia, and lasted between 5 and 12 months. Three studies were funded, in part, by government entities; one study was supported by a nonprofit organization. Two studies did not report a funding source.\nThree studies compared the effects of feeding an animal-source food with a fortified (iron or iron and zinc), or unfortified cereal; two used a control group with no intervention; one compared a meat-based diet to a dairy-based diet. The types of animal-source foods tested included yogurt, eggs, cheese, lyophilized (freeze-dried) beef product, ground and frozen pork, puréed and jarred beef with gravy or pork, and powdered whey protein.\nWe judged four studies to be at unclear risk of bias overall; three studies because they were funded by an industry with a plausible interest in the outcome of the intervention; and one study because there was insufficient information to assess five of the seven bias 'Risk of bias' domains. We judged two of the six studies to be at high risk of bias overall; one study because there was significant baseline imbalance in length-for-age z scores (LAZ) between groups and evidence of selective reporting; the other study because there there was both a significant baseline imbalance in LAZ and weight-for-age z scores (WAZ) between groups, and a large-scale social media campaign that may have influenced care received at home in the control group.\nKey results\nAnimal-source foods versus cereal-based foods or no intervention\nFive studies (2972 children) measured change in linear growth with either height-for-age z scores (HAZ) or LAZ. Three studies (592 children) reported a significant increase in HAZ and LAZ in the intervention group compared to the control group. Two studies (2380 children) reported a decline in LAZ in both groups. In one study (1062 children) there was no difference between the groups in the rate of decline; in the other (1318 children) the decrease in LAZ was significantly smaller in the intervention group.\nFive studies (2972 children) measured weight gain using WAZ. Three studies (592 children) reported a significant increase in WAZ in the intervention group compared to the control group. In two studies (2380 children), WAZ decreased in both groups. In one of these studies (1318 children), the decrease in the intervention group was significantly smaller than in the control group. In the other study (1062 children), there was no difference between the groups.\nThree studies (1612 children) reported impacts on all-cause morbidity, but metrics were inconsistent between studies. One study with yogurt (402 children) reported a significant reduction in duration and incidence of diarrhea and upper respiratory infections in the intervention group. One study with eggs (148 children) reported a significant increase in the incidence of diarrhea in the intervention group, but this may have been due to cultural associations with eggs and gastrointestional problems. There were no other significant differences in fever, respiratory infections, or skin conditions between groups. The third study (1062 children) found no differences between intervention and control groups across morbidity measures.\nNo studies reported data on anemia.\nMeat-based diet versus dairy-based diet\nOne study (64 children) measured change in LAZ and WAZ in infants fed either a meat-based diet or dairy-based diet. There was a significant increase in LAZ among infants consuming the meat-based diet and a significant decrease in LAZ among infants consuming a dairy-based diet. WAZ increased in both groups, with no significant difference between groups.\nThe study did not assess all-cause morbidity or anemia.\nQuality of the evidence\nWe rated the quality of the evidence as very low overall due to baseline imbalances between intervention and control groups, high heterogeneity in meta-analysis, and imprecision due to wide confidence intervals and inconsistent direction of effects. We have little confidence in the results; further research is likely to change the estimate of magnitude and direction of treatment effect.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the limited quality of the evidence, we are uncertain of the effects of the provision of animal-source food versus cereal products or no intervention on the growth or development of children. More adequately powered trials with deliberately selected animal-source foods are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the rationale for studying this?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The nutrition a child receives during the first five years of life is important for his or her growth and development. Animal-source foods such as meat, fish, eggs, or dairy provide critical nutrients. Compared to foods such as iron-fortified cereal products, the nutrients in animal-source foods may be better absorbed by, and used in, the body."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7175
|
[
{
"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: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence was of low quality for both improvement in symptoms as reported by women and increase in endometrial thickness. The main limitations of the evidence were poor reporting of study methods, and lack of precision (i.e. effect estimates with wide confidence intervals) in the findings for both outcomes."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7176
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPlease see Appendix 4 for a glossary of terms.\nThe outcome of patients with esophageal cancer is generally poor. Although multimodal therapy is standard, there is conflicting evidence regarding the addition of esophagectomy to chemoradiotherapy.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness and safety of chemoradiotherapy plus surgery with that of chemoradiotherapy alone in people with nonmetastatic esophageal carcinoma.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a computerized search for relevant studies, up to Feburary 2017, on the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase databases using MeSH headings and keywords. We searched five online databases of clinical trials, handsearched conference proceedings, and screened reference lists of retrieved papers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing chemoradiotherapy plus esophagectomy with chemoradiotherapy alone for localized esophageal carcinoma. We excluded RCTs comparing chemotherapy or radiotherapy alone with esophagectomy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the quality of the evidence, using standardized Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), estimated with Hazard Ratio (HR). Secondary outcomes, estimated with risk ratio (RR), were local and distant progression-free survival (PFS), quality of life (QoL), treatment-related mortality and morbidity, and use of salvage procedures for dysphagia. Data were analyzed using a random effects model in Review Manager 5.3 software.\nMain results\nFrom 2667 references, we identified two randomized studies, in six reports, that included 431 participants. All participants were clinically staged to have at least T3 and/or node positive thoracic esophageal carcinoma, 93% of which was squamous cell histology. The risk of methodological bias of the included studies was low to moderate.\nHigh-quality evidence found the addition of esophagectomy had little or no difference on overall survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.24; P = 0.92; I² = 0%; two trials). Neither study reported PFS, therefore, freedom from loco-regional relapse was used as a proxy. Moderate-quality evidence suggested that the addition of esophagectomy probably improved freedom from locoregional relapse (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.76; P = 0.0004; I² = 0%; two trials), but low-quality evidence suggested it may increase the risk of treatment-related mortality (RR 5.11, 95% CI 1.74 to 15.02; P = 0.003; I² = 2%; two trials).\nThe other pre-specified outcomes (quality of life, treatment-related toxicity, and use of salvage procedures for dysphagia) were reported by only one study, which found very low-quality evidence that use of esophagectomy was associated with reduced short-term QoL (MD 0.93, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.62), and low-quality evidence that it reduced use of salvage procedures for dysphagia (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.75). Neither study compared treatment-related morbidity between treatment groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the available evidence, the addition of esophagectomy to chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, provides little or no difference on overall survival, and may be associated with higher treatment-related mortality. The addition of esophagectomy probably delays locoregional relapse, however, this end point was not well defined in the included studies. It is undetermined whether these results can be applied to the treatment of adenocarcinomas, tumors involving the distal esophagus and gastro-esophageal junction, and to people with poor response to chemoradiation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Does the addition of surgery to chemoradiotherapy, improve survival in people with resectable esophageal cancer (cancer that can be surgically removed)?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7177
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAn estimated 60% of pharmacological randomised trials use placebo control interventions to blind (i.e. mask) participants. However, standard placebos do not control for perceptible non-therapeutic effects (i.e. side effects) of the experimental drug, which may unblind participants. Trials rarely use active placebo controls, which contain pharmacological compounds designed to mimic the non-therapeutic experimental drug effects in order to reduce the risk of unblinding. A relevant improvement in the estimated effects of active placebo compared with standard placebo would imply that trials with standard placebo may overestimate experimental drug effects.\nObjectives\nWe aimed to estimate the difference in drug effects when an experimental drug is compared with an active placebo versus a standard placebo control intervention, and to explore causes for heterogeneity. In the context of a randomised trial, this difference in drug effects can be estimated by directly comparing the effect difference between the active placebo and standard placebo intervention.\nSearch methods\nWe searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, two other databases, and two trial registries up to October 2020. We also searched reference lists and citations and contacted trial authors.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials that compared an active placebo versus a standard placebo intervention. We considered trials both with and without a matching experimental drug arm.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data, assessed risk of bias, scored active placebos for adequacy and risk of unintended therapeutic effect, and categorised active placebos as unpleasant, neutral, or pleasant. We requested individual participant data from the authors of four cross-over trials published after 1990 and one unpublished trial registered after 1990. Our primary inverse-variance, random-effects meta-analysis used standardised mean differences (SMDs) of active versus standard placebo for participant-reported outcomes at earliest post-treatment assessment. A negative SMD favoured the active placebo. We stratified analyses by trial type (clinical or preclinical) and supplemented with sensitivity and subgroup analyses and meta-regression. In secondary analyses, we investigated observer-reported outcomes, harms, attrition, and co-intervention outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 21 trials (1462 participants). We obtained individual participant data from four trials. Our primary analysis of participant-reported outcomes at earliest post-treatment assessment resulted in a pooled SMD of −0.08 (95% confidence interval (CI) −0.20 to 0.04; I2 = 31%; 14 trials), with no clear difference between clinical and preclinical trials. Individual participant data contributed 43% of the weight of this analysis. Two of seven sensitivity analyses found more pronounced and statistically significant differences; for example, in the five trials with low overall risk of bias, the pooled SMD was −0.24 (95% CI −0.34 to −0.13). The pooled SMD of observer-reported outcomes was similar to the primary analysis. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for harms was 3.08 (95% CI 1.56 to 6.07), and for attrition, 1.22 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.03). Co-intervention data were limited. Meta-regression found no statistically significant association with adequacy of the active placebo or risk of unintended therapeutic effect.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe did not find a statistically significant difference between active and standard placebo control interventions in our primary analysis, but the result was imprecise and the CI compatible with a difference ranging from important to irrelevant. Furthermore, the result was not robust, because two sensitivity analyses produced a more pronounced and statistically significant difference. We suggest that trialists and users of information from trials carefully consider the type of placebo control intervention in trials with high risk of unblinding, such as those with pronounced non-therapeutic effects and participant-reported outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included 21 trials in this review, covering subjects such as pain and psychiatry. We found no clear difference between the two types of placebo in participant-reported outcomes (such as pain intensity). However, because the result was uncertain, the possible range of this result included both no difference and a potentially important difference in favour of active placebo. When we limited our analysis to higher-quality trials, active placebos were more beneficial than standard placebos, but these trials were not typical clinical trials and might not be applicable to clinical scenarios."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7178
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nContractures are a common complication of neurological and non-neurological conditions, and are characterised by a reduction in joint mobility. Stretch is widely used for the treatment and prevention of contractures. However, it is not clear whether stretch is effective. This review is an update of the original 2010 version of this review.\nObjectives\nThe aim of this review was to determine the effects of stretch on contractures in people with, or at risk of developing, contractures.The outcomes of interest were joint mobility, quality of life, pain, activity limitations, participation restrictions, spasticity and adverse events.\nSearch methods\nIn November 2015 we searched CENTRAL, DARE, HTA; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; SCI-EXPANDED; PEDro and trials registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of stretch applied for the purpose of treating or preventing contractures.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The outcomes of interest were joint mobility, quality of life, pain, activity limitations, participation restrictions and adverse events. We evaluated outcomes in the short term (up to one week after the last stretch) and in the long term (more than one week). We expressed effects as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses with a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE.\nMain results\nForty-nine studies with 2135 participants met the inclusion criteria. No study performed stretch for more than seven months. Just over half the studies (51%) were at low risk of selection bias; all studies were at risk of detection bias for self reported outcomes such as pain and at risk of performance bias due to difficulty of blinding the intervention. However, most studies were at low risk of detection bias for objective outcomes including range of motion, and the majority of studies were free from attrition and selective reporting biases. The effect of these biases were unlikely to be important, given that there was little benefit with treatment. There was high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on joint mobility in people with neurological conditions (MD 2°; 95% CI 0° to 3°; 26 studies with 699 participants) or non-neurological conditions (SMD 0.2, 95% CI 0 to 0.3, 19 studies with 925 participants).\nIn people with neurological conditions, it was uncertain whether stretch had clinically important short-term effects on pain (SMD 0.2; 95% CI -0.1 to 0.5; 5 studies with 174 participants) or activity limitations (SMD 0.2; 95% CI -0.1 to 0.5; 8 studies with 247 participants). No trials examined the short-term effects of stretch on quality of life or participation restrictions in people with neurological conditions. Five studies involving 145 participants reported eight adverse events including skin breakdown, bruising, blisters and pain but it was not possible to statistically analyse these data.\nIn people with non-neurological conditions, there was high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on pain (SMD -0.2, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.1; 7 studies with 422 participants) and moderate-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on quality of life (SMD 0.3, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.7; 2 studies with 97 participants). The short-term effect of stretch on activity limitations (SMD 0.1; 95% CI -0.2 to 0.3; 5 studies with 356 participants) and participation restrictions were uncertain (SMD -0.2; 95% CI -0.6 to 0.1; 2 studies with 192 participants). Nine studies involving 635 participants reported 41 adverse events including numbness, pain, Raynauds’ phenomenon, venous thrombosis, need for manipulation under anaesthesia, wound infections, haematoma, flexion deficits and swelling but it was not possible to statistically analyse these data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important effects on joint mobility in people with or without neurological conditions if performed for less than seven months. Sensitivity analyses indicate results were robust in studies at risk of selection and detection biases in comparison to studies at low risk of bias. Sub-group analyses also suggest the effect of stretch is consistent in people with different types of neurological or non-neurological conditions. The effects of stretch performed for periods longer than seven months have not been investigated. There was moderate- and high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on quality of life or pain in people with non-neurological conditions, respectively. The short-term effects of stretch on quality of life and pain in people with neurological conditions, and the short-term effects of stretch on activity limitations and participation restrictions for people with and without neurological conditions are uncertain.\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": "stretch is not effective for the treatment and prevention of contractures and does not have short-term effects on quality of life and pain in people with non-neurological conditions. The short-term and long-term effects of stretch on other outcomes in people with neurological and non-neurological conditions are not known."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7179
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCompression hosiery or stockings are often the first line of treatment for varicose veins in people without either healed or active venous ulceration. Evidence is required to determine whether the use of compression stockings can effectively manage and treat varicose veins in the early stages. This is the second update of a review first published in 2011.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of compression stockings for the only and initial treatment of varicose veins in people without healed or active venous ulceration.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 12 May 2020. We also checked references of studies identified from the literature searches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people diagnosed with primary trunk varicose veins without healed or active venous ulceration (Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, Pathophysiology (CEAP) classification C2 to C4). Included trials assessed compression stockings versus no treatment or placebo stockings, or compression stockings plus drug intervention versus drug intervention alone. We also included trials comparing different lengths and pressures of stockings. We excluded trials involving other types of treatment for varicose veins (either as a comparator to stockings or as an initial non-randomised treatment), including sclerotherapy and surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Outcomes of interest were change in symptoms; physiological measures; complications; compliance; comfort, tolerance and acceptability of wearing stockings; and quality of life.\nMain results\nWe included 13 studies with 1021 participants with varicose veins without healed or active venous ulceration. One study included pregnant women while other studies included participants who had sought medical intervention for their varicose veins by being on surgical waiting lists, or attending vascular surgery or dermatology clinics or outpatient departments. The stockings used in the studies exerted different levels of pressure, ranging from 10 mmHg to 50 mmHg. Five studies assessed compression stockings versus no compression stockings or placebo stockings. Three of these studies used knee-length stockings, one used full-length stockings and one used full tights. Eight studies compared different types or pressures of knee-length stockings. The risk of bias of many included trials was unclear, mainly because of inadequate reporting. We were unable to pool studies as they did not report the same outcomes or used different ways to assess them. Many studies were small and there were differences in the populations studied. The certainty of the evidence was therefore low to very low.\nCompression stockings compared with no treatment or placebo stockings\nAll four studies that reported change in symptoms found a subjective improvement by the end of the study. However, change in symptoms was not always analysed by comparing the randomised arms of the studies and was therefore subject to bias. Two studies assessed physiological measures using either ankle circumference or duplex sonography to measure oedema. Ankle circumference showed no clear difference between baseline and follow-up while oedema was reduced in the stocking group compared with the placebo stocking group. Three studies reported complications or side effects with itching and irritation the main side effects reported. None of the trials reported severe side effects. Reports of compliance varied between studies. One study reported a high dropout rate with low levels of compliance due to discomfort, application and appearance; two studies reported generally good levels of compliance in the stocking group compared to placebo/no treatment. Two studies reported comfort, tolerance and acceptability with outcomes affected by the study population. Compression tights were increasingly rejected by pregnant women as their pregnancy progressed, while in one study of non-pregnant women, the stockings group showed no more hindrance of normal activities and daytime discomfort when compared with placebo stockings. One study reported quality of life showing no clear differences between the stocking and placebo stocking groups.\nCompression stockings compared with different compression stockings\nAll five studies that reported change in symptoms found a subjective improvement in symptoms by the end of the study. Change in symptoms was not always analysed comparing the randomised arms of the trials and was therefore subject to bias. Five studies reported a variety of physiological measures such as foot volumetry, volume reduction and change in diameter. Generally, there were no clear differences between study arms. Four studies reported complications or side effects, including sweating, itching, skin dryness, and constriction and tightness. None of the trials reported severe side effects. Two studies reported compliance showing no difference in compliance rates between stockings groups, although one study reported high initial levels of dropout due to discomfort, appearance, non-effectiveness and irritation. Four studies reported comfort, tolerance and acceptability. Two studies reported similar levels of tolerance and discomfort between groups. Discomfort was the main reason for indicating a preference for one type of stocking over another. None of the studies assessed quality of life.\nNo conclusions regarding the optimum length or pressure of compression stockings could be made as there were no conclusive results from the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient high-certainty evidence to determine whether or not compression stockings are effective as the sole and initial treatment of varicose veins in people without healed or active venous ulceration, or whether any type of stocking is superior to any other type. Future research should consist of large RCTs of participants with trunk varices either wearing or not wearing compression stockings to assess the efficacy of this intervention. If compression stockings are found to be beneficial, further studies assessing which length and pressure is the most efficacious could then take place.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The certainty of the evidence was low or very low because of risk of bias due to poor reporting, not all studies assessed the same outcomes, they assessed them in different ways, or reported them in a way that they could be combined and analysed with other studies. Evidence from available trials is not sufficient to determine if compression stockings as the only and initial treatment are effective in managing and treating varicose veins in the early stages."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7180
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIncreased physical activity has been recommended as an important lifestyle modification for the prevention and control of hypertension. Walking is a low-cost form of physical activity and one which most people can do. Studies testing the effect of walking on blood pressure have revealed inconsistent findings.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of walking as a physical activity intervention on blood pressure and heart rate.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the following Chinese databases up to May 2020: Index to Taiwan Periodical Literature System; National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertation in Taiwan; China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Journals, Theses & Dissertations; and Wanfang Medical Online. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of participants, aged 16 years and over, which evaluated the effects of a walking intervention compared to non-intervention control on blood pressure and heart rate were included.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Where data were not available in the published reports, we contacted authors. Pooled results for blood pressure and heart rate were presented as mean differences (MDs) between groups with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We undertook subgroup analyses for age and sex. We undertook sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of sample size on our findings.\nMain results\nA total of 73 trials met our inclusion criteria. These 73 trials included 5763 participants and were undertaken in 22 countries. Participants were aged from 16 to 84 years and there were approximately 1.5 times as many females as males. The characteristics of walking interventions in the included studies were as follows: the majority of walking interventions was at home/community (n = 50) but supervised (n = 36 out of 47 reported the information of supervision); the average intervention length was 15 weeks, average walking time per week was 153 minutes and the majority of walking intensity was moderate. Many studies were at risk of selection bias and performance bias.\nPrimary outcome\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD -4.11 mmHg, 95% CI -5.22 to -3.01; 73 studies, n = 5060). We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces SBP in participants aged 40 years and under (MD -4.41 mmHg, 95% CI -6.17 to -2.65; 14 studies, n = 491), and low-certainty evidence that walking reduces SBP in participants aged 41 to 60 years (MD -3.79 mmHg, 95% CI -5.64 to -1.94, P < 0.001; 35 studies, n = 1959), and those aged 60 years of over (MD -4.30 mmHg, 95% CI -6.17 to -2.44, 24 studies, n = 2610). We also found low certainty-evidence suggesting that walking reduces SBP in both females (MD -5.65 mmHg, 95% CI -7.89 to -3.41; 22 studies, n = 1149) and males (MD -4.64 mmHg, 95% CI -8.69 to -0.59; 6 studies, n = 203).\nSecondary outcomes\nWe found low-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (MD -1.79 mmHg, 95% CI -2.51 to -1.07; 69 studies, n = 4711) and heart rate (MD -2.76 beats per minute (bpm), 95% CI -4.57 to -0.95; 26 studies, n = 1747). We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces DBP for participants aged 40 years and under (MD -3.01 mmHg, 95% CI -4.44 to -1.58; 14 studies, n = 491) and low-certainty evidence suggesting that walking reduces DBP for participants aged 41 to 60 years (MD -1.74 mmHg, 95% CI -2.95 to -0.52; 32 studies, n = 1730) and those aged 60 years and over (MD -1.33 mmHg, 95% CI -2.40 to -0.26; 23 studies, n = 2490). We found moderate-certainty evidence that suggests walking reduces DBP for males (MD -2.54 mmHg, 95% CI -4.84 to -0.24; 6 studies, n = 203) and low-certainty evidence that walking reduces DBP for females (MD -2.69 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.23; 20 studies, n = 1000). Only 21 included studies reported adverse events. Of these 21 studies, 16 reported no adverse events, the remaining five studies reported eight adverse events, with knee injury being reported five times.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-certainty evidence suggests that walking probably reduces SBP. Moderate- or low-certainty evidence suggests that walking may reduce SBP for all ages and both sexes. Low-certainty evidence suggests that walking may reduce DBP and heart rate. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence suggests walking may reduce DBP and heart rate for all ages and both sexes.\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": "Hypertension or elevated blood pressure is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, such as coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure. Lowering blood pressure to normal levels is effective in reducing the risks of these diseases. Many of the risk factors relating to hypertension, such as physical inactivity, a diet high in salt and fat, or cigarette smoking, are related to lifestyle. Physical activity is recognised as an essential component of a healthy lifestyle. However many people may find it difficult to undertake exercise that fits into their daily lives. Walking is a low-cost activity and one which many people can do. Previous studies have shown inconsistent results of the effect of walking on blood pressure control."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7181
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOsteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Risedronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2003.\nObjectives\nWe assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures for postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk for fractures, respectively.\nSearch methods\nWith broader and updated strategies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase. A grey literature search, including the online databases ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and drug approval agencies, as well as bibliography checks of relevant systematic reviews was also performed. Eligible trials published between 1966 to 24 March 2021 were identified.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Participants must have received at least one year of risedronate, placebo or other anti-osteoporotic drugs, with or without concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. In the interest of clinical relevance and applicability, we classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled more than one of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, low bone mineral density (BMD)T score ≤ -2.5, and age ≥ 75 years old. If none of these criteria was met, the study was considered to be primary prevention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We pooled the relative risk (RR) of fractures using a fixed-effect model based on the expectation that the clinical and methodological characteristics of the respective primary and secondary prevention studies would be homogeneous, and the experience from the previous review suggesting that there would be a small number of studies. The base case included the data available for the longest treatment period in each placebo-controlled trial and a >15% relative change was considered clinically important. The main findings of the review were presented in summary of findings tables, using the GRADE approach.\nIn addition, we looked at benefit and harm comparisons between different dosage regimens for risedronate and between risedronate and other anti-osteoporotic drugs.\nMain results\nForty-three trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria, among which 33 studies (27,348 participants) reported data that could be extracted and quantitatively synthesized. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial. Selection bias was the most frequent concern, with only 24% of the studies describing appropriate methods for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. Fifty per cent and 39% of the studies reporting benefit and harm outcomes, respectively, were subject to high risk. None of the studies included in the quantitative syntheses were judged to be at low risk of bias in all seven domains. The results described below pertain to the comparisons for daily risedronate 5 mg versus placebo which reported major outcomes. Other comparisons are described in the full text.\nFor primary prevention, low- to very low-certainty evidence was collected from four studies (one to two years in length) including 989 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Risedronate 5 mg/day may make little or no difference to wrist fractures [RR 0.48 ( 95% CI 0.03 to 7.50; two studies, 243 participants); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 7% more)] and withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; three studies, 748 participants); ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 5% fewer to 1% more)], based on low-certainty evidence. However, its preventive effects on non-vertebral fractures and serious adverse events are not known due to the very low-certainty evidence. There were zero clinical vertebral and hip fractures reported therefore the effects of risedronate for these outcomes are not estimable.\nFor secondary prevention, nine studies (one to three years in length) including 14,354 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided evidence. Risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fractures [RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.90; six studies, 12,173 participants); RRR 20% (95% CI 10% to 28%) and ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 3% fewer), moderate certainty], and may reduce hip fractures [RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.94); RRR 27% (95% CI 6% to 44%) and ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 0.2% fewer to 1% fewer), low certainty]. Both of these effects are probably clinically important. However, risedronate's effects are not known for wrist fractures [RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.24); three studies,1746 participants); ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more), very-low certainty] and not estimable for clinical vertebral fractures due to zero events reported (low certainty). Risedronate results in little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; eight studies, 9529 participants); ARR 0.3% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more); 16.9% in risedronate versus 17.2% in control, high certainty] and probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events [RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; six studies, 9435 participants); ARR 0% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 2% more; 29.2% in both groups, moderate certainty).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis update recaps the key findings from our previous review that, for secondary prevention, risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fracture, and may reduce the risk of hip fractures. We are uncertain on whether risedronate 5mg/day reduces clinical vertebral and wrist fractures. Compared to placebo, risedronate probably does not increase the risk of serious adverse events.\nFor primary prevention, the benefit and harms of risedronate were supported by limited evidence with high uncertainty.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Best estimate of what happens to postmenopausal women at higher risk for fractures who take risedronate or placebo\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Fractures of the spine suggested by clinical signs and symptoms were not reported in any of the studies.\nFractures in bones other than the spine:\n- 10 out of 100 women had a fracture when taking a placebo;\n- 8 out of 100 women had a fracture when taking risedronate;\nFractures of the hip\n- 3 out of 100 women had a fracture when taking a placebo;\n- 2 out of 100 women had a fracture when taking risedronate.\nFractures of the wrist:\n- there is not enough information to tell if risedronate prevents wrist fractures."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7183
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with haematological disorders are frequently at risk of severe or life-threatening bleeding as a result of thrombocytopenia (reduced platelet count). This is despite the routine use of prophylactic platelet transfusions to prevent bleeding once the platelet count falls below a certain threshold. Platelet transfusions are not without risk and adverse events may be life-threatening. A possible adjunct to prophylactic platelet transfusions is the use of antifibrinolytics, specifically the lysine analogues tranexamic acid (TXA) and epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of antifibrinolytics (lysine analogues) in preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 07 March 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs involving participants with haematological disorders, who would routinely require prophylactic platelet transfusions to prevent bleeding. We only included trials involving the use of the lysine analogues TXA and EACA.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all electronically-derived citations and abstracts of papers, identified by the review search strategy, for relevancy. Two review authors independently assessed the full text of all potentially relevant trials for eligibility, completed the data extraction and assessed the studies for risk of bias using The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool. We requested missing data from one author but the data were no longer available. The outcomes are reported narratively: we performed no meta-analyses because of the heterogeneity of the available data.\nMain results\nWe identified three new studies in this update of the review. In total seven studies were eligible for inclusion, three were ongoing RCTs and four were completed studies. The four completed studies were included in the original review and the three ongoing studies were included in this update. We did not identify any RCTs that compared TXA with EACA.\nOf the four completed studies, one cross-over TXA study (eight participants) was excluded from the outcome analysis because it had very flawed study methodology. Data from the other three studies were all at unclear risk of bias due to lack of reporting of study methodology.\nThree studies (two TXA (12 to 56 participants), one EACA (18 participants) reported in four articles (published 1983 to 1995) were included in the narrative review. All three studies compared the drug with placebo. All three studies included adults with acute leukaemia receiving chemotherapy. One study (12 participants) only included participants with acute promyelocytic leukaemia. None of the studies included children. One of the three studies reported funding sources and this study was funded by a charity.\nWe are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics reduce the risk of bleeding (three studies; 86 participants; very low-quality evidence). Only one study reported the number of bleeding events per participant and there was no difference in the number of bleeding events seen during induction or consolidation chemotherapy between TXA and placebo (induction; 38 participants; mean difference (MD) 1.70 bleeding events, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 3.77: consolidation; 18 participants; MD -1.50 bleeding events, 95% CI -3.25 to 0.25; very low-quality evidence). The two other studies suggested bleeding was reduced in the antifibrinolytic study arm, but this was statistically significant in only one of these two studies.\nTwo studies reported thromboembolism and no events occurred (68 participants, very low-quality evidence).\nAll three studies reported a reduction in platelet transfusion usage (three studies, 86 participants; very low-quality evidence), but this was reported in different ways and no meta-analysis could be performed. No trials reported the number of platelet transfusions per participant. Only one study reported the number of platelet components per participant and there was a reduction in the number of platelet components per participant during consolidation chemotherapy but not during induction chemotherapy (consolidation; 18 participants; MD -5.60 platelet units, 95% CI -9.02 to -2.18: induction; 38 participants, MD -1.00 platelet units, 95% CI -9.11 to 7.11; very low-quality evidence).\nOnly one study reported adverse events of TXA as an outcome measure and none occurred. One study stated side effects of EACA were minimal but no further information was provided (two studies, 74 participants, very low-quality evidence).\nNone of the studies reported on the following pre-specified outcomes: overall mortality, adverse events of transfusion, disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) or quality of life (QoL).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur results indicate that the evidence available for the use of antifibrinolytics in haematology patients is very limited. The trials were too small to assess whether or not antifibrinolytics decrease bleeding. No trials reported the number of platelet transfusions per participant. The trials were too small to assess whether or not antifibrinolytics increased the risk of thromboembolic events or other adverse events. There are three ongoing RCTs (1276 participants) due to be completed in 2017 and 2020.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In people with haematological disorders who have a low platelet count and would usually be treated with platelet transfusions, we are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics decrease the risk of bleeding and the use of platelet transfusions. We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics increase the risk of developing a clot. We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics increases the risk of adverse events.\nNone of the studies reported several of this review's outcomes including overall mortality, adverse events of transfusion, and quality of life."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7184
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPre-eclampsia is a pregnancy-specific multi-organ disorder, which is characterised by hypertension and multisystem organ involvement and which has significant maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. Failure of the placental vascular remodelling and reduced uteroplacental flow form the etiopathological basis of pre-eclampsia. There are several established therapies for pre-eclampsia including antihypertensives and anticonvulsants. Most of these therapies aim at controlling the blood pressure or preventing complications of elevated blood pressure, or both. Epidural therapy aims at blocking the vasomotor tone of the arteries, thereby increasing uteroplacental blood flow. This review was aimed at evaluating the available evidence about the possible benefits and risks of epidural therapy in the management of severe pre-eclampsia, to define the current evidence level of this therapy, and to determine what (if any) further evidence is required.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness, safety and cost of the extended use of epidural therapy for treating severe pre-eclampsia in non-labouring women. This review aims to compare the use of extended epidural therapy with other methods, which include intravenous magnesium sulphate, anticonvulsants other than magnesium sulphate, with or without use of the antihypertensive drugs and adjuncts in the treatment of severe pre-eclampsia.\nThis review only considered the use of epidural anaesthesia in the management of severe pre-eclampsia in the antepartum period and not as pain relief in labour.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (13 July 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing epidural therapy versus traditional therapy for pre-eclampsia in the form of antihypertensives, anticonvulsants, magnesium sulphate, low-dose dopamine, corticosteroids or a combination of these, were eligible for inclusion. Trials using a cluster design, and studies published in abstract form only are also eligible for inclusion in this review. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion in this review.\nData collection and analysis\nThe two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality. There were no relevant data available for extraction.\nMain results\nWe included one small study (involving 24 women). The study was a single-centre randomised trial conducted in Mexico. This study compared a control group who received antihypertensive therapy, anticonvulsant therapy, plasma expanders, corticosteroids and dypyridamole with an intervention group that received epidural block instead of the antihypertensives, as well as all the other four drugs. Lumbar epidural block was given using 0.25% bupivacaine, 10 mg bolus and 5 mg each hour on continuous epidural infusion for six hours. This study was at low risk of bias in three domains but was assessed to be high risk of bias in two domains due to lack of allocation concealment and blinding of women and staff, and unclear for random sequence generation and outcome assessor blinding.\nThe included study did not report on any of this review's important outcomes. Meta-analysis was not possible.\nFor the mother, these were: maternal death (death during pregnancy or up to 42 days after the end of the pregnancy, or death more than 42 days after the end of the pregnancy); development of eclampsia or recurrence of seizures; stroke; any serious morbidity: defined as at least one of stroke, kidney failure, liver failure, HELLP syndrome (haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets), disseminated intravascular coagulation, pulmonary oedema.\nFor the baby, these were: death: stillbirths (death in utero at or after 20 weeks' gestation), perinatal deaths (stillbirths plus deaths in the first week of life), death before discharge from the hospital, neonatal deaths (death within the first 28 days after birth), deaths after the first 28 days; preterm birth (defined as the birth before 37 completed weeks' gestation); and side effects of the intervention.\nReported outcomes\nThe included study only reported on a single secondary outcome of interest to this review: the Apgar score of the baby at birth and after five minutes and there was no clear difference between the intervention and control groups.\nThe included study also reported a reduction in maternal diastolic arterial pressure. However, the change in maternal mean arterial pressure and systolic arterial pressure, which were the other reported outcomes of this trial, were not significantly different between the two groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, there is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness, safety or cost of using epidural therapy for treating severe pre-eclampsia in non-labouring women.\nHigh-quality randomised controlled trials are needed to evaluate the use of epidural agents as therapy for treatment of severe pre-eclampsia. The rationale for the use of epidural is well-founded. However there is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to show that the effect of epidural translates into improved maternal and fetal outcomes. Thus, there is a need for larger, well-designed studies to come to an evidence-based conclusion as to whether the lowering of vasomotor tone by epidural therapy results in better maternal and fetal outcomes and for how long that could be maintained. Another important question that needs to be answered is how long should extended epidural be used to ensure any potential clinical benefits and what could be the associated side effects and costs. Interactions with other modalities of treatment and women's satisfaction could represent other avenues of research.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the issue?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Pre-eclampsia is a serious pregnancy-related, multiorgan disorder which effects both mother and baby generally in the third trimester. High blood pressure and protein in the urine are early indications of pre-eclampsia. If severe, women can develop headache, visual disturbance, pain in the stomach or upper abdomen regions, nausea and vomiting. They are at high risk of seizures, haemolysis (breakdown of red blood cells) elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP) syndrome, oedema in the lungs, widespread activation of blood clotting, loss of vision, renal or liver failure and placental abruption where the placenta separates from the uterus. The leakage of fluid out of the blood vessels and into the surrounding tissues causes swelling, reduced volume of circulating blood and blood flow to vital organs. The baby is at risk of restricted growth, stillbirth, preterm birth or death around the time of birth or soon after. The common cause appears to be a decrease in the blood flow to the uterus and placenta."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7185
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with stroke conventionally receive a substantial part of their rehabilitation in hospital. Services have now been developed that offer people in hospital an early discharge with rehabilitation at home (early supported discharge: ESD).\nObjectives\nTo establish if, in comparison with conventional care, services that offer people in hospital with stroke a policy of early discharge with rehabilitation provided in the community (ESD) can: 1) accelerate return home, 2) provide equivalent or better patient and carer outcomes, 3) be acceptable satisfactory to patients and carers, and 4) have justifiable resource implications use.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (January 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched January 2017), MEDLINE in Ovid (searched January 2017), Embase in Ovid (searched January 2017), CINAHL in EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to December 2016), and Web of Science (to January 2017). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials we searched six trial registries (March 2017). We also performed citation tracking of included studies, checked reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted trialists.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting stroke patients in hospital to receive either conventional care or any service intervention that has provided rehabilitation and support in a community setting with an aim of reducing the duration of hospital care.\nData collection and analysis\nThe primary patient outcome was the composite end-point of death or long-term dependency recorded at the end of scheduled follow-up. Two review authors scrutinised trials, categorised them on their eligibility and extracted data. Where possible we sought standardised data from the primary trialists. We analysed the results for all trials and for subgroups of patients and services, in particular whether the intervention was provided by a co-ordinated multidisciplinary team (co-ordinated ESD team) or not. We assessed risk of bias for the included trials and used GRADE to assess the quality of the body of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 17 trials, recruiting 2422 participants, for which outcome data are currently available. Participants tended to be a selected elderly group of stroke survivors with moderate disability. The ESD group showed reductions in the length of hospital stay equivalent to approximately six days (mean difference (MD) -5.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3 to -8 days; P < 0.0001; moderate-grade evidence). The primary outcome was available for 16 trials (2359 participants). Overall, the odds ratios (OR) for the outcome of death or dependency at the end of scheduled follow-up (median 6 months; range 3 to 12) was OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.95, P = 0.01, moderate-grade evidence) which equates to five fewer adverse outcomes per 100 patients receiving ESD. The results for death (16 trials; 2116 participants) and death or requiring institutional care (12 trials; 1664 participants) were OR 1.04 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, P = 0.81, moderate-grade evidence) and OR 0.75 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.96, P = 0.02, moderate-grade evidence), respectively. Small improvements were also seen in participants' extended activities of daily living scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.25, P = 0.01, low-grade evidence) and satisfaction with services (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.38, P = 0.02, low-grade evidence). We saw no clear differences in participants' activities of daily living scores, patients subjective health status or mood, or the subjective health status, mood or satisfaction with services of carers. We found low-quality evidence that the risk of readmission to hospital was similar in the ESD and conventional care group (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.51, P = 0.59, low-grade evidence). The evidence for the apparent benefits were weaker at one- and five-year follow-up. Estimated costs from six individual trials ranged from 23% lower to 15% greater for the ESD group in comparison to usual care.\nIn a series of pre-planned analyses, the greatest reductions in death or dependency were seen in the trials evaluating a co-ordinated ESD team with a suggestion of poorer results in those services without a co-ordinated team (subgroup interaction at P = 0.06). Stroke patients with mild to moderate disability at baseline showed greater reductions in death or dependency than those with more severe stroke (subgroup interaction at P = 0.04).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAppropriately resourced ESD services with co-ordinated multidisciplinary team input provided for a selected group of stroke patients can reduce long-term dependency and admission to institutional care as well as reducing the length of hospital stay. Results are inconclusive for services without co-ordinated multidisciplinary team input. We observed no adverse impact on the mood or subjective health status of patients or carers, nor on readmission to hospital.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The quality of the evidence was downgraded to 'moderate' for the main outcomes of death, discharge home or disability. This was because it was impossible to hide the treating service from participants or healthcare workers. These conclusions were not dependent on trials judged to be lower quality because of poor design or missing data. More information was missing for some of the other outcome measures, which we have downgraded to low-quality evidence."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7186
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGuttate psoriasis displays distinctive epidemiological and clinical features, making it a separate entity within the heterogeneous group of cutaneous psoriasis types. It is associated with genetic, immune, and environmental factors (such as stress and infections) and usually arises in younger age groups (including children, teenagers, and young adults). There is currently no cure for psoriasis, but various treatments can help to relieve the symptoms and signs. The objectives of treatment when managing an acute flare of guttate psoriasis are to reduce time to clearance and induction of long-term remission after resolution. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2000; since then, new treatments have expanded the therapeutic spectrum of systemic treatments used for psoriasis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of non-antistreptococcal interventions for acute guttate psoriasis or an acute guttate flare of chronic psoriasis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to June 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. We checked the proceedings of key dermatology conferences from 2004 to 2018, and also searched for trials in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database for drug registration.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of treatments for acute guttate psoriasis or an acute guttate flare of chronic psoriasis clinically diagnosed in children and adults. This included all topical and systemic drugs, biological therapy, phototherapy (all forms: topical and systemic), and complementary and alternative therapies. We compared these treatments against placebo or against another treatment. We did not include studies on drugs that aim to eradicate streptococcal infection. We did not include studies when separate results for guttate psoriasis participants were not available.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility and methodological quality and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were 'percentage of participants clear or almost clear (i.e. obtaining Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 100/90 and/or Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) of 0 or 1)' and 'percentage of participants with adverse effects and severe adverse effects'. Our secondary outcomes were 'number of relapses of guttate psoriasis or flares within a period of six months after the treatment has finished', 'percentage of participants achieving a PASI 75 or PGA of 1 or 2', and 'improvement in participant satisfaction measures and quality of life assessment measures'. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nThis review included only one trial (21 participants), which compared fish oil-derived (n-3) fatty acid-based lipid emulsion (50 mL per infusion (1.05 g eicosapentaenoic and 10.5 g docosahexaenoic acid)) (10 participants) to soya oil-derived (n-6) fatty acid-based lipid emulsion (50 mL per infusion (1.05 g eicosapentaenoic and 10.5 g docosahexaenoic acid)) (11 participants) administered intravenously twice daily for 10 days, with a total follow-up of 40 days. The study was conducted in a single centre in Germany in 18 men and three women, aged between 21 and 65 years, who were in hospital with acute guttate psoriasis and had mean total body surface involvement of 25.7% ± 20.4% (range 10 to 90). The study was funded by a company that produces the oil emulsions. We found no other evidence regarding non-antistreptococcal interventions used in clinical practice for guttate psoriasis, such as topical treatments (corticosteroids, vitamin D₃ analogues), systemic drugs, biological therapy, and phototherapy.\nThe primary outcomes of the review were not measured, and only one of our secondary outcomes was measured: improvement in participant satisfaction measures and quality of life assessment measures. However, the study authors did report that there was rare skin irritation at the site of peripheral intravenous route, but the number of affected participants was not provided.\nImprovement between baseline and day 10, using a non-validated score assessed by participants themselves daily based on five items (appearance of lesions, impairment of daily life, pruritus, burning, and pain), was greater in the group that received the fish oil-derived (n-3) fatty acid-based lipid emulsion (75%) than in the group receiving the soya oil-derived (n-6) fatty acid-based lipid emulsion (18%) (one trial, 21 participants). However, these results are uncertain as they are based on very low-quality evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence regarding topical and systemic drugs, biotherapy, or phototherapy in guttate psoriasis (we did not consider drugs that aimed to eradicate streptococcal infection because these are assessed in another Cochrane Review). We are uncertain of the effect of intravenously administered lipid emulsion on guttate psoriasis because the quality of the evidence is very low, due to risk of bias (unclear risk of bias for all domains), indirectness (the trial only included adults, and the follow-up from baseline was only 10 days), and imprecision (small number of participants).\nThis review highlights the need for trials assessing the efficacy and safety of phototherapy and topical and systemic drugs for guttate psoriasis. There is also a need for studies that clearly distinguish the specific population with guttate psoriasis from the larger group of people with chronic plaque psoriasis, and children and young adults should be assessed as a distinct group.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found one relevant study that compared the effects of giving injections into the vein of two different lipid (fat) emulsions twice daily for 10 days: one emulsion (two or more liquids that are often unmixable) was derived from fish oil, and the other was derived from soya oil. Participants were followed for a total of 40 days. The study was conducted in Germany in 21 adults (18 men and 3 women) aged 21 to 65 years, with a mean of involved skin surface of 25%, who were in hospital with acute guttate psoriasis. The study was funded by the company that produces the oil emulsions."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7187
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBoth peripheral arterial thrombolysis and surgery can be used in the management of peripheral arterial ischaemia. Much is known about the indications, risks, and benefits of thrombolysis. However, whether thrombolysis works better than surgery for initial management of acute limb ischaemia remains unknown. This is the second update of the review first published in 2002.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether thrombolysis or surgery is the more effective technique in the initial management of acute limb ischaemia due to thromboembolism.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL, AMED, and clinical trials registries up to 7 May 2018.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled studies comparing thrombolysis and surgery for initial treatment of acute limb ischaemia.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Agreement was reached by consensus. We performed analyses using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nWe identified no new studies for this update. We included five trials with a total of 1292 participants; agents used for thrombolysis were recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and urokinase. Trials were generally of moderate methodological quality. The quality of evidence according to GRADE was generally low owing to risk of bias (lack of blinding), imprecision in estimates, and heterogeneity.\nTrial results showed no clear differences in limb salvage, amputation, or death at 30 days (odds ratio (OR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 2.55, 4 studies, 636 participants; OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.85, 3 studies, 616 participants; OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.14, 4 studies, 636 participants, respectively), and we rated the evidence as low, low, and moderate quality, respectively. Trial results show no clear differences for any of the three outcomes at six months or one year between initial surgery and initial thrombolysis. A single study evaluated vessel patency, so no overall association could be determined (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.76, 20 participants; very low-quality evidence). Evidence of increased risk of major haemorrhage (OR 3.22, 95% CI 1.79 to 5.78, 4 studies, 1070 participants; low-quality evidence) and distal embolisation (OR 31.68, 95% CI 6.23 to 161.07, 3 studies, 678 participants; very low-quality evidence) was associated with thrombolysis treatment at 30 days, and there was no clear difference in stroke (OR 5.33, 95% CI 0.95 to 30.11, 5 studies, 1180 participants; low-quality evidence). Participants treated by initial thrombolysis had a greater reduction in the level of intervention required, compared with a pre-intervention prediction, at 30 days (OR 9.06, 95% CI 4.95 to 16.56, 2 studies, 502 participants). None of the included studies evaluated time to thrombolysis as an outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no evidence in favour of either initial thrombolysis or initial surgery as the preferred option in terms of limb salvage, amputation, or death at 30 days, six months, or one year. Low-quality evidence suggests that thrombolysis may be associated with higher risk of haemorrhagic complications and ongoing limb ischaemia (distal embolisation). The higher risk of complications must be balanced against risks of surgery in each individual case. Trial results show no statistical difference in stroke, but the confidence interval is very wide, making it difficult to interpret whether this finding is clinically important. We used GRADE criteria to assess the quality of the evidence as generally low. We downgraded quality owing to risk of bias, imprecision, and heterogeneity between included studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusion\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review found no evidence of a difference between thrombolysis and surgery for treatment of acute limb ischaemia for our outcomes of interest. Those receiving thrombolysis treatment may be at higher risk of complications such as bleeding. The quality of data generated by the included studies is low."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7188
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) require intensive follow-up with frequent consultations after diagnosis. IBD telehealth management includes consulting by phone, instant messenger, video, text message, or web-based services. Telehealth can be beneficial for people with IBD, but may have its own set of challenges. It is important to systematically review the evidence on the types of remote or telehealth approaches that can be deployed in IBD. This is particularly relevant following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which led to increased self- and remote-management.\nObjectives\nTo identify the communication technologies used to achieve remote healthcare for people with inflammatory bowel disease and to assess their effectiveness.\nSearch methods\nOn 13 January 2022, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, three other databases, and three trials registries with no limitations on language, date, document type, or publication status.\nSelection criteria\nAll published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated telehealth interventions targeted at people with IBD versus any other type of intervention or no intervention.\nWe did not include studies based on digital patient information resources or education resources, unless they formed part of a wider package including an element of telehealth. We excluded studies where remote monitoring of blood or faecal tests was the only form of monitoring.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We analysed studies on adult and paediatric populations separately. We expressed the effects of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and the effects of continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), each with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology.\nMain results\nWe included 19 RCTs with a total of 3489 randomised participants, aged eight to 95 years. Three studies examined only people with ulcerative colitis (UC), two studies examined only people with Crohn's disease (CD), and the remaining studies examined a mix of IBD patients. Studies considered a range of disease activity states. The length of the interventions ranged from six months to two years. The telehealth interventions were web-based and telephone-based.\nWeb-based monitoring versus usual care\nTwelve studies compared web-based disease monitoring to usual care.\nThree studies, all in adults, provided data on disease activity. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 254) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 174) in reducing disease activity in people with IBD (SMD 0.09, 95% CI −0.11 to 0.29). The certainty of the evidence is moderate.\nFive studies on adults provided dichotomous data that we could use for a meta-analysis on flare-ups. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 207/496) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 150/372) for the occurrence of flare-ups or relapses in adults with IBD (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.27). The certainty of the evidence is moderate. One study provided continuous data. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 465) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 444) for the occurrence of flare-ups or relapses in adults with CD (MD 0.00 events, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.06). The certainty of the evidence is moderate. One study provided dichotomous data on flare-ups in a paediatric population. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 28/84) may be equivalent to usual care (n = 29/86) for the occurrence of flare-ups or relapses in children with IBD (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.51). The certainty of the evidence is low.\nFour studies, all in adults, provided data on quality of life. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 594) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 505) for quality of life in adults with IBD (SMD 0.08, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.20). The certainty of the evidence is moderate.\nBased on continuous data from one study in adults, we found that web-based disease monitoring probably leads to slightly higher medication adherence compared to usual care (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.47). The results are of moderate certainty. Based on continuous data from one paediatric study, we found no difference between web-based disease monitoring and usual care in terms of their effect on medication adherence (MD 0.00, 95% CI −0.63 to 0.63), although the evidence is very uncertain. When we meta-analysed dichotomous data from two studies on adults, we found no difference between web-based disease monitoring and usual care in terms of their effect on medication adherence (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.21), although the evidence is very uncertain.\nWe were unable to draw any conclusions on the effects of web-based disease monitoring compared to usual care on healthcare access, participant engagement, attendance rate, interactions with healthcare professionals, and cost- or time-effectiveness. The certainty of the evidence is very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence in this review suggests that web-based disease monitoring is probably no different to standard care in adults when considering disease activity, occurrence of flare-ups or relapse, and quality of life. There may be no difference in these outcomes in children, but the evidence is limited. Web-based monitoring probably increases medication adherence slightly compared to usual care.\nWe are uncertain about the effects of web-based monitoring versus usual care on our other secondary outcomes, and about the effects of the other telehealth interventions included in our review, because the evidence is limited.\nFurther studies comparing web-based disease monitoring to standard care for the clinical outcomes reported in adults are unlikely to change our conclusions, unless they have longer follow-up or investigate under-reported outcomes or populations. Studies with a clearer definition of web-based monitoring would enhance applicability, enable practical dissemination and replication, and enable alignment with areas identified as important by stakeholders and people affected by IBD.\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": "Providing care from a distance, also called telehealth, is becoming more common, especially since the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Using technology to provide remote care could benefit people with inflammatory bowel disease. Telehealth can take place via telephone, instant messaging, video, text message, web-based services, or other means.\nWe wanted to find which communication technologies are used for remote care in inflammatory bowel disease, how they are used, if they are accessible to everyone, and what are their benefits or drawbacks."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7189
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2013. The conclusions of this review have not changed from the 2013 publication. People with chronic non-cancer pain who are prescribed and are taking opioids can have a history of long-term, high-dose opioid use without effective pain relief. In those without good pain relief, reduction of prescribed opioid dose may be the desired and shared goal of both patient and clinician. Simple, unsupervised reduction of opioid use is clinically challenging, and very difficult to achieve and maintain.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effectiveness of different methods designed to achieve reduction or cessation of prescribed opioid use for the management of chronic non-cancer pain in adults compared to controls.\nSearch methods\nFor this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in January 2017, as well as bibliographies and citation searches of included studies. We also searched one trial registry for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nIncluded studies had to be randomised controlled trials comparing opioid users receiving an intervention with a control group receiving treatment as usual, active control, or placebo. The aim of the study had to include a treatment goal of dose reduction or cessation of opioid medication.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We sought data relating to prescribed opioid use, adverse events of opioid reduction, pain, and psychological and physical function. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach, however, due to the heterogeneity of studies, we were unable to combine outcomes in a meta-analysis and therefore we did not assess the evidence with GRADE.\nMain results\nThree studies are new to this update, resulting in five included studies in total (278 participants). Participants were primarily women (mean age 49.63 years, SD = 11.74) with different chronic pain conditions. We judged the studies too heterogeneous to pool data in a meta-analysis, so we have summarised the results from each study qualitatively. The studies included acupuncture, mindfulness, and cognitive behavioral therapy interventions aimed at reducing opioid consumption, misuse of opioids, or maintenance of chronic pain management treatments. We found mixed results from the studies. Three of the five studies reported opioid consumption at post-treatment and follow-up. Two studies that delivered 'Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement' or 'Therapeutic Interactive Voice Response' found a significant difference between groups at post-treatment and follow-up in opioid consumption. The remaining study found reduction in opioid consumption in both treatment and control groups, and between-group differences were not significant. Three studies reported adverse events related to the study and two studies did not have study-related adverse events. We also found mixed findings for pain intensity and physical functioning. The interventions did not show between-group differences for psychological functioning across all studies. Overall, the risk of bias was mixed across studies. All studies included sample sizes of fewer than 100 and so we judged all studies as high risk of bias for that category.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence for the efficacy or safety of methods for reducing prescribed opioid use in chronic pain. There is a small number of randomised controlled trials investigating opioid reduction, which means our conclusions are limited regarding the benefit of psychological, pharmacological, or other types of interventions for people with chronic pain trying to reduce their opioid consumption. The findings to date are mixed: there were reductions in opioid consumption after intervention, and often in control groups too.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "No conclusions can be drawn from this small amount of information. Therefore, it is not clear whether these treatments decrease the amount of opioids in adults with chronic pain (primary outcome) or reduce pain intensity, physical ability or mood (secondary outcomes). Three studies did include negative effects of their treatment, and two reported that the participants did not have anything negative happen to them because of the trial they were in. Non-randomised studies, not included in this review, do indicate that for many people intensive rehabilitation packages may bring about major reduction in opioid use. Reducing prescribed opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain is an important topic in need of more systematic research."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7190
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCarnitine deficiency is common in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) who require dialysis. Several clinical studies have suggested that carnitine supplementation is beneficial for dialysis-related symptoms. However, the clinical effectiveness and potential adverse effects of carnitine supplementation in dialysis patients have not been determined.\nObjectives\nThis review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of carnitine supplementation for the treatment of dialysis-related complications in CKD patients requiring dialysis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 16 August 2022 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\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which allocation to treatment was obtained by alternation, use of alternate medical records, date of birth, or other predictable methods) that compared carnitine supplements with placebo or standard care in people with CKD requiring dialysis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted study data and assessed study quality. We used a random-effects model to perform a quantitative synthesis of the data.\nWe used the I² statistic to measure heterogeneity amongst the studies in each analysis. We indicated summary estimates as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, or standardised mean differences (SMD) if different scales were used, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for each of the main outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.\nMain results\nWe included 52 studies (47 parallel RCTs and five cross-over RCTs) (3398 randomised participants). All studies compared L-carnitine with a placebo, other treatment, or no treatment. Standard care was continued as co-interventions in each group. Most studies were judged to have an unclear or high risk of bias.\nL-carnitine may have little or no effect on the quality of life (QoL) SF-36 physical component score (PCS) (4 studies, 134 participants: SMD 0.57, 95% CI -0.15 to 1.28; I² = 73%; low certainty of evidence), and the total QoL score (Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL), VAS (general well-being), or PedsQL) (3 studies, 230 participants: SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.25; I² = 0%; low certainty of evidence). L-carnitine may improve SF-36 mental component score (MCS) (4 studies, 134 participants: SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.18; I² = 42%; low certainty of evidence). L-carnitine may have little or no effect on fatigue score (2 studies, 353 participants: SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.23; I² = 0%; low certainty of evidence), adverse events (12 studies, 1041 participants: RR, 1.14, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.51; I² = 0%; low certainty of evidence), muscle cramps (2 studies, 102 participants: RR, 0.44, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.09; I² = 23%; low certainty of evidence), and intradialytic hypotension (3 studies, 128 participants: RR, 0.76, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.69; I² = 0%; low certainty of evidence). L-carnitine may improve haemoglobin levels (26 studies, 1795 participants: MD 0.46 g/dL, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.74; I² = 86%; low certainty of evidence) and haematocrit values (14 studies, 950 participants: MD 1.78%, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.18; I² = 84%; low certainty of evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available evidence does not currently support the use of carnitine supplementation in the treatment of dialysis-related carnitine deficiency. Although carnitine supplementation may slightly improve anaemia-related markers, carnitine supplementation makes little or no difference to adverse events. However, these conclusions are based on limited data and, therefore, should be interpreted with caution.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We identified 52 studies with a total of 3398 CKD patients undergoing dialysis. We could not determine the impact of L-carnitine on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms due to dialysis-related carnitine deficiency. L-carnitine may improve anaemia in these patients. Additionally, evidence for the adverse effects of L-carnitine supplementation in this patient population is very limited."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7191
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRegional anaesthesia may reduce the rate of persistent postoperative pain (PPP), a frequent and debilitating condition. This review was originally published in 2012 and updated in 2017.\nObjectives\nTo compare local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months in adults and children undergoing elective surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to December 2016 without any language restriction. We used a combination of free text search and controlled vocabulary search. We limited results to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We updated this search in December 2017, but these results have not yet been incorporated in the review. We conducted a handsearch in reference lists of included studies, review articles and conference abstracts. We searched the PROSPERO systematic review registry for related systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing local or regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia with a pain outcome beyond three months after elective, non-orthopaedic surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data and adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We presented outcomes as pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), based on random-effects models (inverse variance method). We analysed studies separately by surgical intervention, but pooled outcomes reported at different follow-up intervals. We compared our results to Bayesian and classical (frequentist) models. We investigated heterogeneity. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.\nMain results\nIn this updated review, we identified 40 new RCTs and seven ongoing studies. In total, we included 63 RCTs in the review, but we were only able to synthesize data on regional anaesthesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months after surgery from 39 studies, enrolling a total of 3027 participants in our inclusive analysis.\nEvidence synthesis of seven RCTs favoured epidural anaesthesia for thoracotomy, suggesting the odds of having PPP three to 18 months following an epidural for thoracotomy were 0.52 compared to not having an epidural (OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.84, 499 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Simlarly, evidence synthesis of 18 RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia for the prevention of persistent pain three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.43 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.68, 1297 participants, low-quality evidence). Pooling data at three to 8 months after surgery from four RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia after caesarean section with an OR of 0.46, (95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; 551 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence synthesis of three RCTs investigating continuous infusion with local anaesthetic for the prevention of PPP three to 55 months after iliac crest bone graft harvesting (ICBG) was inconclusive (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.09; 123 participants, low-quality evidence). However, evidence synthesis of two RCTs also favoured the infusion of intravenous local anaesthetics for the prevention of PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.24 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, 97 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nWe did not synthesize evidence for the surgical subgroups of limb amputation, hernia repair, cardiac surgery and laparotomy. We could not pool evidence for adverse effects because the included studies did not examine them systematically, and reported them sparsely. Clinical heterogeneity, attrition and sparse outcome data hampered evidence synthesis. High risk of bias from missing data and lack of blinding across a number of included studies reduced our confidence in the findings. Thus results must be interpreted with caution.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe conclude that there is moderate-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP after three to 18 months after thoracotomy and three to 12 months after caesarean section. There is low-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery. There is moderate evidence that intravenous infusion of local anaesthetics may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery.\nOur conclusions are considerably weakened by the small size and number of studies, by performance bias, null bias, attrition and missing data. Larger, high-quality studies, including children, are needed. We caution that except for breast surgery, our evidence synthesis is based on only a few small studies. On a cautionary note, we cannot extend our conclusions to other surgical interventions or regional anaesthesia techniques, for example we cannot conclude that paravertebral block reduces the risk of PPP after thoracotomy. There are seven ongoing studies and 12 studies awaiting classification that may change the conclusions of the current review once they are published and incorporated.\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": "Regional anaesthesia reduced the number of people who experienced persistent pain after undergoing non-orthopaedic surgery. For open chest surgery, giving an epidural halved the odds of a person having persistent postoperative pain at three to 18 months after surgery (7 RCTs, 499 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Seven people needed to be treated in this way for one to benefit.\nFor the prevention of persistent pain three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery, seven people needed regional anaesthesia for one to benefit (18 RCTs, 1297 participants, low-quality evidence). Infusion of local anaesthetic into a vein was shown to reduce the risk of persistent pain three to six months after breast surgery (2 RCTs, 97 participants, moderate-quality evidence), with three people needing to be treated for one to benefit. Regional anaesthesia reduced the odds by more than half of a woman experiencing persistent pain after caesarean section (4 RCTs, 551 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The number of women treated for one to benefit was 19.\nContinuous local anaesthetic infusion of the site where bone tissue was obtained from the hip bone did not clearly reduce the number of people with persistent pain at three to 55 months (3 RCTs, 123 participants, low-quality evidence).\nWe could not synthesize evidence for limb amputation, hernia repair, cardiac or abdominal surgery because of differences in how treatment was given or how results were reported."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7192
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnaemia is a prevalent health problem worldwide. Some types are preventable or controllable with iron supplementation (pills or drops), fortification (sprinkles or powders containing iron added to food) or improvements to dietary diversity and quality (e.g. education or counselling).\nObjectives\nTo summarise the evidence from systematic reviews regarding the benefits or harms of nutrition-specific interventions for preventing and controlling anaemia in anaemic or non-anaemic, apparently healthy populations throughout the life cycle.\nMethods\nIn August 2020, we searched MEDLINE, Embase and 10 other databases for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in anaemic or non-anaemic, apparently healthy populations. We followed Cochrane methodology, extracting GRADE ratings where provided. The primary outcomes were haemoglobin (Hb) concentration, anaemia, and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA); secondary outcomes were iron deficiency (ID), severe anaemia and adverse effects (e.g. diarrhoea, vomiting).\nMain results\nWe included 75 systematic reviews, 33 of which provided GRADE assessments; these varied between high and very low.\nInfants (6 to 23 months; 13 reviews)\nIron supplementation increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia and IDA in two reviews. Iron fortification of milk or cereals, multiple-micronutrient powder (MMNP), home fortification of complementary foods, and supplementary feeding increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia in six reviews. In one review, lipid-based nutrient supplementation (LNS) reduced the risk of anaemia. In another, caterpillar cereal increased Hb levels and reduced IDA prevalence. Food-based strategies (red meat and fortified cow's milk, beef) showed no evidence of a difference (1 review).\nPreschool and school-aged children (2 to 10 years; 8 reviews)\nDaily or intermittent iron supplementation increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia and ID in two reviews. One review found no evidence of difference in Hb levels, but an increased risk of anaemia and ID for the intermittent regime. All suggested that zinc plus iron supplementation versus zinc alone, multiple-micronutrient (MMN)-fortified beverage versus control, and point-of-use fortification of food with iron-containing micronutrient powder (MNP) versus placebo or no intervention may increase Hb levels and reduce the risk of anaemia and ID. Fortified dairy products and cereal food showed no evidence of a difference on the incidence of anaemia (1 review).\nAdolescent children (11 to 18 years; 4 reviews)\nCompared with no supplementation or placebo, five types of iron supplementation may increase Hb levels and reduce the risk of anaemia (3 reviews). One review on prevention found no evidence of a difference in anaemia incidence on iron supplementation with or without folic acid, but Hb levels increased. Another suggested that nutritional supplementation and counselling reduced IDA. One review comparing MMN fortification with no fortification observed no evidence of a difference in Hb levels.\nNon-pregnant women of reproductive age (19 to 49 years; 5 reviews)\nTwo reviews suggested that iron therapy (oral, intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM)) increased Hb levels; one showed that iron folic acid supplementation reduced anaemia incidence; and another that daily iron supplementation with or without folic acid or vitamin C increased Hb levels and reduced the risk of anaemia and ID. No review reported interventions related to fortification or dietary diversity and quality.\nPregnant women of reproductive age (15 to 49 years; 23 reviews)\nOne review apiece suggested that: daily iron supplementation with or without folic acid increased Hb levels in the third trimester or at delivery and in the postpartum period, and reduced the risk of anaemia, IDA and ID in the third trimester or at delivery; intermittent iron supplementation had no effect on Hb levels and IDA, but increased the risk of anaemia at or near term and ID, and reduced the risk of side effects; vitamin A supplementation alone versus placebo, no intervention or other micronutrient might increase maternal Hb levels and reduce the risk of maternal anaemia; MMN with iron and folic acid versus placebo reduced the risk of anaemia; supplementation with oral bovine lactoferrin versus oral ferrous iron preparations increased Hb levels and reduced gastrointestinal side effects; MNP for point-of-use fortification of food versus iron and folic acid supplementation might decrease Hb levels at 32 weeks' gestation and increase the risk of anaemia; and LNS versus iron or folic acid and MMN increased the risk of anaemia.\nMixed population (all ages; 22 reviews)\nIron supplementation versus placebo or control increased Hb levels in healthy children, adults, and elderly people (4 reviews). Hb levels appeared to increase and risk of anaemia and ID decrease in two reviews investigating MMN fortification versus placebo or no treatment, iron fortified flour versus control, double fortified salt versus iodine only fortified salt, and rice fortification with iron alone or in combination with other micronutrients versus unfortified rice or no intervention. Each review suggested that fortified versus non-fortified condiments or noodles, fortified (sodium iron ethylenediaminetetraacetate; NaFeEDTA) versus non-fortified soy sauce, and double-fortified salt versus control salt may increase Hb concentration and reduce the risk of anaemia. One review indicated that Hb levels increased for children who were anaemic or had IDA and received iron supplementation, and decreased for those who received dietary interventions. Another assessed the effects of foods prepared in iron pots, and found higher Hb levels in children with low-risk malaria status in two trials, but no difference when comparing food prepared in non-cast iron pots in a high-risk malaria endemicity mixed population.\nThere was no evidence of a difference for adverse effects. Anaemia and malaria prevalence were rarely reported. No review focused on women aged 50 to 65 years plus or men (19 to 65 years plus).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to no treatment, daily iron supplementation may increase Hb levels and reduce the risk of anaemia and IDA in infants, preschool and school-aged children and pregnant and non-pregnant women. Iron fortification of foods in infants and use of iron pots with children may have prophylactic benefits for malaria endemicity low-risk populations. In any age group, only a limited number of reviews assessed interventions to improve dietary diversity and quality. Future trials should assess the effects of these types of interventions, and consider the requirements of different populations.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does this mean?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Compared to no treatment, daily iron supplementation may increase Hb levels and reduce the risk of anaemia and IDA in infants, preschool and school-aged children and pregnant and non-pregnant women. Iron fortification of foods in infants and use of iron pots with children may have benefits for low-risk populations. Many trials reported the effects of supplementations, but very few reviews focused on fortification or improving diet diversity and quality. Future trials should focus on different types of interventions to increase food variety and dietary quality."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7193
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nParacetamol (acetaminophen) is vastly recommended as the first-line analgesic for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. However, there has been controversy about this recommendation given recent studies have revealed small effects of paracetamol when compared with placebo. Nonetheless, past studies have not systematically reviewed and appraised the literature to investigate the effects of this drug on specific osteoarthritis sites, that is, hip or knee, or on the dose used.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of paracetamol compared with placebo in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts to 3 October 2017, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal on 20 October 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing paracetamol with placebo in adults with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Major outcomes were pain, function, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and abnormal liver function tests.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors used standard Cochrane methods to collect data, and assess risk of bias and quality of the evidence. For pooling purposes, we converted pain and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function) scores to a common 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability) scale.\nMain results\nWe identified 10 randomised placebo-controlled trials involving 3541 participants with hip or knee osteoarthritis. The paracetamol dose varied from 1.95 g/day to 4 g/day, and the majority of trials followed participants for three months only. Most trials did not clearly report randomisation and concealment methods and were at unclear risk of selection bias. Trials were at low risk of performance, detection, and reporting bias.\nAt 3 weeks' to 3 months' follow-up, there was high-quality evidence that paracetamol provided no clinically important improvements in pain and physical function. Mean reduction in pain was 23 points (0 to 100 scale, lower scores indicated less pain) with placebo and 3.23 points better (5.43 better to 1.02 better) with paracetamol, an absolute reduction of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 9%) and relative reduction of 5% (2% better to 8% better) (seven trials, 2355 participants). Physical function improved by 12 points on a 0 to 100 scale (lower scores indicated better function) with placebo and was 2.9 points better (0.95 better to 4.89 better) with paracetamol, an absolute improvement of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 10%) and relative improvement of 5% (2% better to 9% better) (7 trials, 2354 participants).\nHigh-quality evidence from eight trials indicated that the incidence of adverse events was similar between groups: 515/1586 (325 per 1000) in the placebo group versus 537/1666 (328 per 1000, range 299 to 360) in the paracetamol group (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.11). There was less certainty (moderate-quality evidence) around the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and the rate of abnormal liver function tests, due to wide CIs or small event rates, indicating imprecision. Seventeen of 1480 (11 per 1000) people treated with placebo and 28/1729 (16 per 1000, range 8 to 29) people treated with paracetamol experienced serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.53; 6 trials). The incidence of withdrawals due to adverse events was 65/1000 participants in with placebo and 77/1000 (range 59 to 100) participants with paracetamol (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.55; 7 trials). Abnormal liver function occurred in 18/1000 participants treated with placebo and 70/1000 participants treated with paracetamol (RR 3.79, 95% CI 1.94 to 7.39), but the clinical importance of this effect was uncertain. None of the trials reported quality of life.\nSubgroup analyses indicated that the effects of paracetamol on pain and function did not differ according to the dose of paracetamol (3.0 g/day or less versus 3.9 g/day or greater).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on high-quality evidence this review confirms that paracetamol provides only minimal improvements in pain and function for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with no increased risk of adverse events overall. Subgroup analysis indicates that the effects on pain and function do not differ according to the dose of paracetamol. Due to the small number of events, we are less certain if paracetamol use increases the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and rate of abnormal liver function tests.\nCurrent clinical guidelines consistently recommend paracetamol as the first-line analgesic medication for hip or knee osteoarthritis, given its low absolute frequency of substantive harm. However, our results call for reconsideration of these recommendations.\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": "Osteoarthritis of the hip or knee is a progressive disabling disease affecting many people worldwide. Although paracetamol is widely used as a treatment option for this condition, recent studies have called into question how effective this pain relief medication is."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7194
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCervical cerclage is a surgical intervention involving placing a stitch around the uterine cervix. The suture material aims to prevent cervical shortening and opening, thereby reducing the risk of preterm birth. The effectiveness and safety of this procedure in multiple gestations remains controversial.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether the use of a cervical cerclage in multiple gestations, either at high risk of pregnancy loss based on just the multiple gestation (history-indicated cerclage), the ultrasound findings of 'short cervix' (ultrasound-indicated cerclage), or the physical exam changes in the cervix (physical exam-indicated cerclage), improves obstetrical and perinatal outcomes. The primary outcomes assessed were perinatal deaths, serious neonatal morbidity, and perinatal deaths and serious neonatal morbidity.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cervical cerclage in multiple pregnancies. Quasi-RCTs and RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion (but none were identified). Studies using a cross-over design and those presented only as abstracts were not eligible for inclusion.\nWe included studies comparing cervical cerclage with no cervical cerclage in multiple pregnancies.\nStudies comparing cervical stitch versus any other preventative therapy (e.g. progesterone) in multiple pregnancies, and studies involving comparisons between different cerclage protocols (history-indicated versus ultrasound-indicated versus physical exam-indicated cerclage) were also eligible for inclusion but none were identified.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias. Two review authors extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.\nMain results\nWe included five trials, which in total randomised 1577 women, encompassing both singleton and multiple gestations. After excluding singletons, the final analysis included 128 women, of which 122 women had twin gestations, and six women had triplet gestations. Two trials (n = 73 women) assessed history-indicated cerclage, while three trials (n = 55 women) assessed ultrasound-indicated cerclage. The five trials were judged to be of average to above average quality, with three of the trials at unclear risk regarding selection and detection biases.\nConcerning the primary outcomes, when outcomes for cerclage were pooled together for all indications and compared with no cerclage, there was no statistically significant differences in perinatal deaths (19.2% versus 9.5%; risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.92 to 3.28, five trials, n = 262), serious neonatal morbidity (15.8% versus 13.6%; average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.10, three trials, n = 116), or composite perinatal death and neonatal morbidity (40.4% versus 20.3%; average RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.58 to 4.11, three trials, n = 116).\nAmong the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between the cerclage and the no cerclage groups. To name a few, there were no significant differences among the following: preterm birth less than 34 weeks (average RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.06, four trials, n = 83), preterm birth less than 35 weeks (average RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.14, four trials, n = 83), low birthweight less than 2500 g (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.48, four trials, n = 172), very low birthweight less than 1500 g (average RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.85, four trials, n = 172), and respiratory distress syndrome (average RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.15 to 18.77, three trials, n = 116). There were also no significant differences between the cerclage and no cerclage groups when examining caesarean section (elective and emergency) (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.35, three trials, n = 77) and maternal side-effects (RR 3.92, 95% CI 0.17 to 88.67, one trial, n = 28).\nExamining the differences between prespecified subgroups, ultrasound-indicated cerclage was associated with an increased risk of low birthweight (average RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.83, Tau² = 0.01, I² = 15%, three trials, n = 98), very low birthweight (average RR 3.31, 95% CI 1.58 to 6.91, Tau² = 0, I² = 0%, three trials, n = 98), and respiratory distress syndrome (average RR 5.07, 95% CI 1.75 to 14.70, Tau² = 0, I² = 0%, three trials, n = 98). However, given the low number of trials, as well as substantial heterogeneity and subgroup differences, these data must be interpreted cautiously.\nNo trials reported on long-term infant neurodevelopmental outcomes. There were no physical exam-indicated cerclages available for comparison among the studies included.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review is based on limited data from five small studies of average to above average quality. For multiple gestations, there is no evidence that cerclage is an effective intervention for preventing preterm births and reducing perinatal deaths or neonatal morbidity.\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 five included studies were generally considered to be of average to above average quality, but three of the studies were difficult to assess fully because of missing methodological information.\nWe did not find any studies comparing different indications for cerclage (obstetric history-indicated versus ultrasound-indicated cerclage) or comparing cerclage to another intervention (such as progesterone)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7195
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEpilepsy is a central nervous system disorder (neurological disorder). Epileptic seizures are the result of excessive and abnormal cortical nerve cell electrical activity in the brain. Despite the development of more than 10 new antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) since the early 2000s, approximately a third of people with epilepsy remain resistant to pharmacotherapy, often requiring treatment with a combination of AEDs. In this review, we summarised the current evidence regarding rufinamide, a novel anticonvulsant medication, which, as a triazole derivative, is structurally unrelated to any other currently used anticonvulsant medication when used as an add-on treatment for drug-resistant epilepsy. In January 2009, rufinamide was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of children four years of age and older with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. It is also approved as an add-on treatment for adults and adolescents with focal seizures.\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of rufinamide when used as an add-on treatment for people with drug-resistant epilepsy.\nSearch methods\nWe imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of rufinamide and authors in the field to identify any relevant unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, add-on trials of rufinamide, recruiting people (of any age or gender) with drug-resistant epilepsy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (primary outcome); seizure freedom; treatment withdrawal; and adverse effects (secondary outcomes). Primary analyses were intention-to-treat (ITT) and we presented summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We evaluated dose response in regression models. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nThe review included six trials, representing 1759 participants. Four trials (1563 participants) included people with uncontrolled focal seizures. Two trials (196 participants) included individuals with established Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Overall, the age of adults ranged from 18 to 80 years and the age of children ranged from 4 to 16 years. Baseline phases ranged from 28 to 56 days and double-blind phases from 84 to 96 days. Five of the six included trials described adequate methods of concealment of randomisation, and only three described adequate blinding. All analyses were by ITT. Overall, five studies were at low risk of bias and one had unclear risk of bias due to lack of reported information around study design. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturer of rufinamide and therefore were at high risk of funding bias.\nThe overall RR for 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency was 1.79 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.22; 6 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), indicating that rufinamide (plus conventional AED) was significantly more effective than placebo (plus conventional AED) in reducing seizure frequency by at least 50% when added to conventionally used AEDs in people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. Data from only one study (73 participants) reported seizure freedom: RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.36 to 4.86; 1 RCT, 73 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The overall RR for treatment withdrawal (for any reason and due to AED) was 1.83 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.31; 6 RCTs, 1759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), showing that rufinamide was significantly more likely to be withdrawn than placebo. Most adverse effects were significantly more likely to occur in the rufinamide-treated group. Adverse events significantly associated with rufinamide were headache, dizziness, somnolence, vomiting, nausea, fatigue, and diplopia. The RRs for these adverse effects were as follows: headache 1.36 (95% Cl 1.08 to 1.69; 3 RCTs, 1228 participants; high-certainty evidence); dizziness 2.52 (95% Cl 1.90 to 3.34; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); somnolence 1.94 (95% Cl 1.44 to 2.61; 6 RCTs, 1759 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); vomiting 2.95 (95% Cl 1.80 to 4.82; 4 RCTs, 777 participants; low-certainty evidence); nausea 1.87 (95% Cl 1.33 to 2.64; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); fatigue 1.46 (95% Cl 1.08 to 1.97; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and diplopia 4.60 (95% Cl 2.53 to 8.38; 3 RCTs, 1295 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no important heterogeneity between studies for any outcomes. Overall, we assessed the evidence as moderate to low certainty due to wide CIs and potential risk of bias from some studies contributing to the analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor people with drug-resistant focal epilepsy, rufinamide when used as an add-on treatment was effective in reducing seizure frequency. However, the trials reviewed were of relatively short duration and provided no evidence for long-term use of rufinamide. In the short term, rufinamide as an add-on was associated with several adverse events. This review focused on the use of rufinamide in drug-resistant focal epilepsy, and the results cannot be generalised to add-on treatment for generalised epilepsies. Likewise, no inference can be made about the effects of rufinamide when used as monotherapy.\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 six studies in 1759 people (aged 4 to 80 years). Four studies included people with focal seizures and two studies included children with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (a type of epilepsy affecting children). They were short-term studies: treatments were given for at most 96 days, and assessments continued for up to 3 to 6 months afterwards.\nThe studies assessed add-on rufinamide treatment compared with an 'add-on' dummy (placebo) treatment. The doses of rufinamide in the studies ranged from 200 mg to 3200 mg daily.\nWe were interested in how many seizures people had. We also wanted to find out if adding rufinamide would affect the number and types of unwanted effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7196
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPressure ulcers are treated by reducing pressure on the areas of damaged skin. Special support surfaces (including beds, mattresses and cushions) designed to redistribute pressure, are widely used as treatments. The relative effects of different support surfaces are unclear. This is an update of an existing review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pressure-relieving support surfaces in the treatment of pressure ulcers.\nSearch methods\nIn September 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and 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 or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), that assessed the effects of support surfaces for treating pressure ulcers, in any participant group or setting.\nData collection and analysis\nData extraction, assessment of 'Risk of bias' and GRADE assessments were performed independently by two review authors. Trials with similar participants, comparisons and outcomes were considered for meta-analysis. Where meta-analysis was inappropriate, we reported the results of the trials narratively. Where possible, we planned to report data as either risk ratio or mean difference as appropriate.\nMain results\nFor this update we identified one new trial of support surfaces for pressure ulcer treatment, bringing the total to 19 trials involving 3241 participants. Most trials were small, with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 1971, and were generally at high or unclear risk of bias.\nPrimary outcome: healing of existing pressure ulcers\nLow-tech constant pressure support surfaces\nIt is uncertain whether profiling beds increase the proportion of pressure ulcer which heal compared with standard hospital beds as the evidence is of very low certainty: (RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.28 to 12.24), downgraded for serious risk of bias, serious imprecision and indirectness (1 study; 70 participants).\nThere is currently no clear difference in ulcer healing between water-filled support surfaces and foam replacement mattresses: (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.37); low-certainty evidence downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision (1 study; 120 participants).\nFurther analysis could not be performed for polyester overlays versus gel overlays (1 study; 72 participants), non-powered mattresses versus low-air-loss mattresses (1 study; 20 participants) or standard hospital mattresses with sheepskin overlays versus standard hospital mattresses (1 study; 36 participants).\nHigh-tech pressure support surfaces\nIt is currently unclear whether high-tech pressure support surfaces (such as low-air-loss beds, air suspension beds, and alternating pressure surfaces) improve the healing of pressure ulcers (14 studies; 2923 participants) or which intervention may be more effective. The certainty of the evidence is generally low, downgraded mostly for risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision.\nSecondary outcomes\nNo analyses were undertaken with respect to secondary outcomes including participant comfort and surface reliability and acceptability as reporting of these within the included trials was very limited.\nOverall, the evidence is of low to very low certainty and was primarily downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision with some indirectness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the current evidence, it is unclear whether any particular type of low- or high-tech support surface is more effective at healing pressure ulcers than standard support surfaces.\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 cannot be certain which support surfaces are most effective for pressure ulcer treatment as the studies comparing them did not involve enough people and were not well designed."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7197
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as important.\nWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions.\nAs the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) from genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, as well as for other unknown reasons.\nNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to treat pain, reduce fever, and for their anti-inflammation properties. They are commonly used within paediatric pain management. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are currently licensed for use in Western countries, however they are not approved for infants under three months old. The main adverse effects include renal impairment and gastrointestinal issues. Common side effects in children include diarrhoea, headache, nausea, constipation, rash, dizziness, and abdominal pain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of NSAIDs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, as well as online clinical trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any NSAID with placebo or an active comparator.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE and created three 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included seven studies with a total of 1074 participants (aged 2 to 18 years) with chronic juvenile polyarthritis or chronic juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. All seven studies compared an NSAID with an active comparator. None of the studies were placebo controlled. No two studies investigated the same type of NSAID compared with another. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis.\nRisk of bias varied. For randomisation and allocation concealment, one study was low risk and six studies were unclear risk. For blinding of participants and personnel, three studies were low risk and four studies were unclear to high risk. For blinding of outcome assessors, all studies were unclear risk. For attrition, four studies were low risk and three studies were unclear risk. For selective reporting, four studies were low risk, two studies were unclear risk, and one study was high risk. For size, three studies were unclear risk and four studies were high risk. For other potential sources of bias, seven studies were low risk.\nPrimary outcomes\nThree studies reported participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater, showing no statistically significant difference in pain scores between meloxicam and naproxen, celecoxib and naproxen, or rofecoxib and naproxen (P > 0.05) (low-quality evidence).\nOne study reported participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater, showing no statistically significant difference in pain scores between low-dose meloxicam (0.125 mg/kg) and high-dose meloxicam (0.25 mg/kg) when compared to naproxen 10 mg/kg (P > 0.05) (low-quality evidence).\nOne study reported Patient Global Impression of Change, showing 'very much improved' in 85% of ibuprofen and 90% of aspirin participants (low-quality evidence).\nSecondary outcomes\nParticipants reporting an adverse event (one or more per person) by drug were: aspirin 85/202; fenoprofen 28/49; ibuprofen 40/45; indomethacin 9/30; ketoprofen 9/30; meloxicam 18/47; naproxen 44/202; and rofecoxib 47/209 (seven studies) (very low-quality evidence).\nParticipants withdrawn due to an adverse event by drug were: aspirin 16/120; celecoxib 10/159; fenoprofen 0/49; ibuprofen 0/45; indomethacin 0/30; ketoprofen 0/30; meloxicam 10/147; naproxen 17/285; and rofecoxib 3/209 (seven studies) (very low-quality evidence).\nParticipants experiencing a serious adverse event by drug were: aspirin 13/120; celecoxib 5/159; fenoprofen 0/79; ketoprofen 0/30; ibuprofen 4/45; indomethacin 0/30; meloxicam 11/147; naproxen 10/285; and rofecoxib 0/209 (seven studies) (very low-quality evidence).\nThere were too few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning as defined by validated scales; and quality of life as defined by validated scales.\nQuality of evidence\nWe downgraded the low-quality outcomes twice due to serious study limitations (risk of bias) and imprecision. We downgraded the very-low quality outcomes three times due to too few data, or the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful, or both.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified only a small number of studies, with insufficient data for analysis.\nAs we could undertake no meta-analysis, we are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of NSAIDs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we cannot comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.\nWe know from adult randomised controlled trials that some NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, naproxen, and aspirin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.\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": "In September 2016 we searched for clinical trials where NSAIDs were used to treat chronic pain. We found seven trials (with a total of 1074 participants, aged 2 to 18 years) with chronic juvenile polyarthritis or chronic juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, which they had for more than 3 months."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7198
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nWomen with suspected early-stage ovarian cancer need surgical staging which involves taking samples from areas within the abdominal cavity and retroperitoneal lymph nodes in order to inform further treatment. One potential strategy is to surgically stage all women with suspicious ovarian masses, without any histological information during surgery. This avoids incomplete staging, but puts more women at risk of potential surgical over-treatment.\nA second strategy is to perform a two-stage procedure to remove the pelvic mass and subject it to paraffin sectioning, which involves formal tissue fixing with formalin and paraffin embedding, prior to ultrathin sectioning and multiple site sampling of the tumour. Surgeons may then base further surgical staging on this histology, reducing the rate of over-treatment, but conferring additional surgical and anaesthetic morbidity.\nA third strategy is to perform a rapid histological analysis on the ovarian mass during surgery, known as 'frozen section'. Tissues are snap frozen to allow fine tissue sections to be cut and basic histochemical staining to be performed. Surgeons can perform or avoid the full surgical staging procedure depending on the results. However, this is a relatively crude test compared to paraffin sections, which take many hours to perform. With frozen section there is therefore a risk of misdiagnosing malignancy and understaging women subsequently found to have a presumed early-stage malignancy (false negative), or overstaging women without a malignancy (false positive). Therefore it is important to evaluate the accuracy and usefulness of adding frozen section to the clinical decision-making process.\nObjectives\nTo assess the diagnostic test accuracy of frozen section (index test) to diagnose histopathological ovarian cancer in women with suspicious pelvic masses as verified by paraffin section (reference standard).\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2015) and relevant Cochrane registers.\nSelection criteria\nStudies that used frozen section for intraoperative diagnosis of ovarian masses suspicious of malignancy, provided there was sufficient data to construct 2 x 2 tables. We excluded articles without an available English translation.\nData collection and analysis\nAuthors independently assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, flow and timing. Data extraction converted 3 x 3 tables of per patient results presented in articles into 2 x 2 tables, for two index test thresholds.\nMain results\nAll studies were retrospective, and the majority reported consecutive sampling of cases. Sensitivity and specificity results were available from 38 studies involving 11,181 participants (3200 with invasive cancer, 1055 with borderline tumours and 6926 with benign tumours, determined by paraffin section as the reference standard). The median prevalence of malignancy was 29% (interquartile range (IQR) 23% to 36%, range 11% to 63%). We assessed test performance using two thresholds for the frozen section test. Firstly, we used a test threshold for frozen sections, defining positive test results as invasive cancer and negative test results as borderline and benign tumours. The average sensitivity was 90.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 87.6% to 92.0%; with most studies typically reporting range of 71% to 100%), and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 99.2% to 99.7%; range 96% to 100%).\nSimilarly, we analysed sensitivity and specificity using a second threshold for frozen section, where both invasive cancer and borderline tumours were considered test positive and benign cases were classified as negative. Average sensitivity was 96.5% (95% CI 95.5% to 97.3%; typical range 83% to 100%), and average specificity was 89.5% (95% CI 86.6% to 91.9%; typical range 58% to 99%).\nResults were available from the same 38 studies, including the subset of 3953 participants with a frozen section result of either borderline or invasive cancer, based on final diagnosis of malignancy. Studies with small numbers of disease-negative cases (borderline cases) had more variation in estimates of specificity. Average sensitivity was 94.0% (95% CI 92.0% to 95.5%; range 73% to 100%), and average specificity was 95.8% (95% CI 92.4% to 97.8%; typical range 81% to 100%).\nOur additional analyses showed that, if the frozen section showed a benign or invasive cancer, the final diagnosis would remain the same in, on average, 94% and 99% of cases, respectively.\nIn cases where the frozen section diagnosis was a borderline tumour, on average 21% of the final diagnoses would turn out to be invasive cancer.\nIn three studies, the same pathologist interpreted the index and reference standard tests, potentially causing bias. No studies reported blinding pathologists to index test results when reporting paraffin sections.\nIn heterogeneity analyses, there were no statistically significant differences between studies with pathologists of different levels of expertise.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn a hypothetical population of 1000 patients (290 with cancer and 80 with a borderline tumour), if a frozen section positive test result for invasive cancer alone was used to diagnose cancer, on average 261 women would have a correct diagnosis of a cancer, and 706 women would be correctly diagnosed without a cancer. However, 4 women would be incorrectly diagnosed with a cancer (false positive), and 29 with a cancer would be missed (false negative).\nIf a frozen section result of either an invasive cancer or a borderline tumour was used as a positive test to diagnose cancer, on average 280 women would be correctly diagnosed with a cancer and 635 would be correctly diagnosed without. However, 75 women would be incorrectly diagnosed with a cancer and 10 women with a cancer would be missed.\nThe largest discordance is within the reporting of frozen section borderline tumours. Investigation into factors leading to discordance within centres and standardisation of criteria for reporting borderline tumours may help improve accuracy. Some centres may choose to perform surgical staging in women with frozen section diagnosis of a borderline ovarian tumour to reduce the number of false positives. In their interpretation of this review, readers should evaluate results from studies most typical of their population of patients.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this review important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Frozen section is not as accurate as the traditional slower paraffin section examination, and it entails a risk of incorrect diagnosis, meaning that some women may not have all the samples taken at the initial surgery and may need to undergo a second operation; and others may undergo unnecessary surgical sampling."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7199
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStandard androgen suppression therapy (AST) using surgical or medical castration is considered a mainstay of advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer treatment. AST can be initiated early when disease is asymptomatic or deferred when patients suffer symptoms of disseminated prostate cancer.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of early versus deferred standard AST for advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.\nSearch methods\nFor this Cochrane Review update, we performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science; last searched November 2018) and two clinical trial registers, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. We also searched bibliographies of included studies and conference proceedings (last searched January 2019).\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a direct comparison of early versus deferred standard AST. We excluded all other study designs. Participants included had advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer receiving surgical or medical castration.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. The primary outcomes were time to death of any cause and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were time to disease progression, time to death from prostate cancer, adverse events and quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the certainty of evidence according to GRADE. We performed subgroup analyses for advanced but non-metastatic disease (T2-4/N+ M0), metastatic disease (M1), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) relapse.\nMain results\nWe identified seven new RCTs since publication of the original review in 2002. In total, we included 10 RCTs.\nPrimary outcomes\nEarly AST probably reduces the risk of death from any cause over time (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.90; moderate-certainty evidence; 4767 participants). This corresponds to 57 fewer deaths (95% CI 80 fewer to 31 fewer) per 1000 participants at 5 years for the moderate risk group and 23 fewer deaths (95% CI 32 fewer to 13 fewer) per 1000 participants at 5 years in the low risk group. We downgraded for study limitations. Early versus deferred AST may have little or no effect on serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence; 10,575 participants) which corresponds to 6 more serious adverse events (6 fewer to 18 more) per 1000 participants. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and selective reporting.\nSecondary outcomes\nEarly AST probably reduces the risk of death from prostate cancer over time (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.84; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 62 fewer prostate cancer deaths per 1000 (95% CI 87 fewer to 31 fewer) at 5 years for the moderate risk group and 24 fewer death from prostate cancer (95% CI 34 fewer to 12 fewer) per 1000 men at 5 years in the low risk group. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations.\nEarly AST may decrease the rate of skeletal events (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.80; low-certainty evidence) corresponding to 23 fewer skeletal events per 1000 (95% CI 31 fewer to 7 fewer). We downgraded for study limitations and imprecision. It may also increase fatigue (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.62; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 31 more men with this complaint per 1000 (95% CI 18 more to 48 more). We downgraded for study limitations and imprecision. It may increase the risk of heart failure (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.33; low-certainty evidence) corresponding to 27 more events per 1000 (95% CI 3 more to 69 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision.\nGlobal quality of life is probably similar after two years as assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) questionnaire (mean difference −1.56, 95% CI −4.50 to 1.38; moderate-certainty evidence) with higher scores reflecting better quality of life. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEarly AST probably extends time to death of any cause and time to death from prostate cancer. It may slightly decrease the rate of skeletal events. Rates of serious adverse events and quality of life may be similar. It may increase fatigue and may increase the risk of heart failure. Better quality trials would be particularly important to better understand the outcomes related to possible treatment-related harm, for which we only found low-certainty evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 10 studies that matched our question. We found that early hormonal treatment probably lowers the risk of dying from any cause. The risk of serious unwanted effects may be similar to that of late treatment.\nEarly hormonal treatment probably lowers the risk of dying from prostate cancer and slightly lowers the risk of problems related to cancer spreading to the bones.\nMen getting early treatment may be more likely to feel tired and develop heart weakness.\nOverall quality of life is probably unaffected (or only slightly affected) by early treatment.\nThe certainty of evidence was either moderate, which means that the true results are likely close to what we found; or low, in which case our concern is that the true results could be quite different to what we found."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7200
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHypertension is an important risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events including stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure and renal failure. The main goal of treatment is to reduce these events. Systematic reviews have shown proven benefit of antihypertensive drug therapy in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality but most of the evidence is in people 60 years of age and older. We wanted to know what the effects of therapy are in people 18 to 59 years of age.\nObjectives\nTo quantify antihypertensive drug effects on all-cause mortality in adults aged 18 to 59 years with mild to moderate primary hypertension. To quantify effects on cardiovascular mortality plus morbidity (including cerebrovascular and coronary heart disease mortality plus morbidity), withdrawal due adverse events and estimate magnitude of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) lowering at one year.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to January 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized trials of at least one year' duration comparing antihypertensive pharmacotherapy with a placebo or no treatment in adults aged 18 to 59 years with mild to moderate primary hypertension defined as SBP 140 mmHg or greater or DBP 90 mmHg or greater at baseline, or both.\nData collection and analysis\nThe outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, total cardiovascular (CVS) mortality plus morbidity, withdrawals due to adverse events, and decrease in SBP and DBP. For dichotomous outcomes, we used risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and a fixed-effect model to combine outcomes across trials. For continuous outcomes, we used mean difference (MD) with 95% CI and a random-effects model as there was significant heterogeneity.\nMain results\nThe population in the seven included studies (17,327 participants) were predominantly healthy adults with mild to moderate primary hypertension. The Medical Research Council Trial of Mild Hypertension contributed 14,541 (84%) of total randomized participants, with mean age of 50 years and mean baseline blood pressure of 160/98 mmHg and a mean duration of follow-up of five years. Treatments used in this study were bendrofluazide 10 mg daily or propranolol 80 mg to 240 mg daily with addition of methyldopa if required. The risk of bias in the studies was high or unclear for a number of domains and led us to downgrade the quality of evidence for all outcomes.\nBased on five studies, antihypertensive drug therapy as compared to placebo or untreated control may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality (2.4% with control vs 2.3% with treatment; low quality evidence; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.13). Based on 4 studies, the effects on coronary heart disease were uncertain due to low quality evidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.19). Low quality evidence from six studies showed that drug therapy may reduce total cardiovascular mortality and morbidity from 4.1% to 3.2% over five years (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91) due to reduction in cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity (1.3% with control vs 0.6% with treatment; RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64). Very low quality evidence from three studies showed that withdrawals due to adverse events were higher with drug therapy from 0.7% to 3.0% (RR 4.82, 95% CI 1.67 to 13.92). The effects on blood pressure varied between the studies and we are uncertain as to how much of a difference treatment makes on average.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAntihypertensive drugs used to treat predominantly healthy adults aged 18 to 59 years with mild to moderate primary hypertension have a small absolute effect to reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity primarily due to reduction in cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity. All-cause mortality and coronary heart disease were not reduced. There is lack of good evidence on withdrawal due to adverse events. Future trials in this age group should be at least 10 years in duration and should compare different first-line drug classes and strategies.\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
|
7201
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nExposure to rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse has lifelong impacts for mental health and well-being. Prolonged Exposure (PE), Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) and Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) are among the most common interventions offered to survivors to alleviate post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychological impacts. Beyond such trauma-focused cognitive and behavioural approaches, there is a range of low-intensity interventions along with new and emerging non-exposure based approaches (trauma-sensitive yoga, Reconsolidation of Traumatic Memories and Lifespan Integration). This review presents a timely assessment of international evidence on any type of psychosocial intervention offered to individuals who experienced rape, sexual assault or sexual abuse as adults.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of psychosocial interventions on mental health and well-being for survivors of rape, sexual assault or sexual abuse experienced during adulthood.\nSearch methods\nIn January 2022, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 12 other databases and three trials registers. We also checked reference lists of included studies, contacted authors and experts, and ran forward citation searches.\nSelection criteria\nAny study that allocated individuals or clusters of individuals by a random or quasi-random method to a psychosocial intervention that promoted recovery and healing following exposure to rape, sexual assault or sexual abuse in those aged 18 years and above compared with no or minimal intervention, usual care, wait-list, pharmacological only or active comparison(s). We classified psychosocial interventions according to Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group’s psychological therapies list.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 36 studies (1991 to 2021) with 3992 participants randomly assigned to 60 experimental groups (3014; 76%) and 23 inactive comparator conditions (978, 24%).\nThe experimental groups consisted of: 32 Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT); 10 behavioural interventions; three integrative therapies; three humanist; five other psychologically oriented interventions; and seven other psychosocial interventions. Delivery involved 1 to 20 (median 11) sessions of traditional face-to-face (41) or other individual formats (four); groups (nine); or involved computer-only interaction (six). Most studies were conducted in the USA (n = 26); two were from South Africa; two from the Democratic Republic of the Congo; with single studies from Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Five studies did not disclose a funding source, and all disclosed sources were public funding.\nParticipants were invited from a range of settings: from the community, through the media, from universities and in places where people might seek help for their mental health (e.g. war veterans), in the aftermath of sexual trauma (sexual assault centres and emergency departments) or for problems that accompany the experience of sexual violence (e.g. sexual health/primary care clinics). Participants randomised were 99% women (3965 participants) with just 27 men. Half were Black, African or African-American (1889 participants); 40% White/Caucasian (1530 participants); and 10% represented a range of other ethnic backgrounds (396 participants). The weighted mean age was 35.9 years (standard deviation (SD) 9.6). Eighty-two per cent had experienced rape or sexual assault in adulthood (3260/3992). Twenty-two studies (61%) required fulfilling a measured PTSD diagnostic threshold for inclusion; however, 94% of participants (2239/2370) were reported as having clinically relevant PTSD symptoms at entry.\nThe comparison of psychosocial interventions with inactive controls detected that there may be a beneficial effect at post-treatment favouring psychosocial interventions in reducing PTSD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.22 to -0.44; 16 studies, 1130 participants; low-certainty evidence; large effect size based on Cohen’s D); and depression (SMD -0.82, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.48; 12 studies, 901 participants; low-certainty evidence; large effect size). Psychosocial interventions, however, may not increase the risk of dropout from treatment compared to controls, with a risk ratio of 0.85 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.44; 5 studies, 242 participants; low-certainty evidence). Seven of the 23 studies (with 801 participants) comparing a psychosocial intervention to an inactive control reported on adverse events, with 21 events indicated. Psychosocial interventions may not increase the risk of adverse events compared to controls, with a risk ratio of 1.92 (95% CI 0.30 to 12.41; 6 studies; 622 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nWe conducted an assessment of risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool on a total of 49 reported results. A high risk of bias affected 43% of PTSD results; 59% for depression symptoms; 40% for treatment dropout; and one-third for adverse events. The greatest sources of bias were problems with randomisation and missing outcome data. Heterogeneity was also high, ranging from I2 = 30% (adverse events) to I2 = 87% (PTSD).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur review suggests that survivors of rape, sexual violence and sexual abuse during adulthood may experience a large reduction in post-treatment PTSD symptoms and depressive symptoms after experiencing a psychosocial intervention, relative to comparison groups. Psychosocial interventions do not seem to increase dropout from treatment or adverse events/effects compared to controls. However, the number of dropouts and study attrition were generally high, potentially missing harms of exposure to interventions and/or research participation. Also, the differential effects of specific intervention types needs further investigation.\nWe conclude that a range of behavioural and CBT-based interventions may improve the mental health of survivors of rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse in the short term. Therefore, the needs and preferences of individuals must be considered in selecting suitable approaches to therapy and support. The primary outcome in this review focused on the post-treatment period and the question about whether benefits are sustained over time persists. However, attaining such evidence from studies that lack an active comparison may be impractical and even unethical. Thus, we suggest that studies undertake head-to-head comparisons of different intervention types; in particular, of novel, emerging therapies, with one-year plus follow-up periods. Additionally, researchers should focus on the therapeutic benefits and costs for subpopulations such as male survivors and those living with complex PTSD.\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 found evidence that psychological or social (collectively known as ‘psychosocial’) interventions may reduce symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression in survivors of rape, sexual assault and abuse experienced during adulthood.\n• Our review suggests that interventions did not worsen symptoms or lead to unwanted effects. However, as large numbers of participants dropped out of treatments or did not complete studies’ assessments, these findings are unclear. More recent studies were better at reporting information about participant safety, and reasons why survivors did not complete treatments or health and wellbeing assessments after the interventions.\n• As the studies brought diverse groups of participants together, future research is needed to improve understanding about which interventions are most suited to particular groups of survivors, including those with long-term or complex trauma, as well as men and gender minorities. 'Emerging' interventions, which have potential to expand treatment choices for survivors, also warrant more evaluation."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7203
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe impact of workplace interventions on the outcome of occupational asthma is not well understood.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions on occupational asthma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (PubMed); EMBASE(Ovid); NIOSHTIC-2; and CISILO (CCOHS) up to July 31, 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all eligible randomized controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time-series of workplace interventions for occupational asthma.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data.\nMain results\nWe included 26 non-randomized controlled before and after studies with 1,695 participants that reported on three comparisons: complete removal from exposure and reduced exposure compared to continued exposure, and complete removal from exposure compared to reduced exposure. Reduction of exposure was achieved by limiting use of the agent, improving ventilation, or using protective equipment in the same job; by changing to another job with intermittent exposure; or by implementing education programs. For continued exposure, 56 per 1000 workers reported absence of symptoms at follow-up, the decrease in forced expiratory volume in one second as a percentage of a reference value (FEV1 %) was 5.4% during follow-up, and the standardized change in non-specific bronchial hyperreactivity (NSBH) was -0.18.\nIn 18 studies, authors compared removal from exposure to continued exposure. Removal may increase the likelihood of reporting absence of asthma symptoms, with risk ratio (RR) 4.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 13.86), and it may improve asthma symptoms, with RR 2.47 (95% CI 1.26 to 4.84), compared to continued exposure. Change in FEV1 % may be better with removal from exposure, with a mean difference (MD) of 4.23 % (95% CI 1.14 to 7.31) compared to continued exposure. NSBH may improve with removal from exposure, with standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.43 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.82).\nIn seven studies, authors compared reduction of exposure to continued exposure. Reduction of exposure may increase the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms, with RR 2.65 (95% CI 1.24 to 5.68). There may be no considerable difference in FEV1 % between reduction and continued exposure, with MD 2.76 % (95% CI -1.53 to 7.04) . No studies reported or enabled calculation of change in NSBH.\nIn ten studies, authors compared removal from exposure to reduction of exposure. Following removal from exposure there may be no increase in the likelihood of reporting absence of symptoms, with RR 6.05 (95% CI 0.86 to 42.34), and improvement in symptoms, with RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.47), as well as no considerable change in FEV1 %, with MD 2.58 % (95% CI −3.02 to 8.17). However, with all three outcomes, there may be improved results for removal from exposure in the subset of patients exposed to low molecular weight agents. No studies reported or enabled calculation of change in NSBH.\nIn two studies, authors reported that the risk of unemployment after removal from exposure may increase compared with reduction of exposure, with RR 14.28 (95% CI 2.06 to 99.16). Four studies reported a decrease in income of 20% to 50% after removal from exposure.\nThe quality of the evidence is very low for all outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBoth removal from exposure and reduction of exposure may improve asthma symptoms compared with continued exposure. Removal from exposure, but not reduction of exposure, may improve lung function compared to continued exposure. When we compared removal from exposure directly to reduction of exposure, the former may improve symptoms and lung function more among patients exposed to low molecular weight agents. Removal from exposure may also increase the risk of unemployment. Care providers should balance the potential clinical benefits of removal from exposure or reduction of exposure with potential detrimental effects of unemployment. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions for occupational asthma.\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 conducted a systematic review of workplace interventions for treating occupational asthma. Asthma symptoms and lung function may improve when persons with occupational asthma are removed from exposure, usually by ending their job, compared to continued exposure on the same job. Asthma symptoms but not lung function may improve after reducing exposure, for example by training and education, compared to continued exposure. Removal from exposure may improve symptoms and lung function more than exposure reduction among workers exposed to low molecular weight agents, but removal from exposure may also increase the risk of unemployment. All evidence was of very low quality and therefore there is a need for better studies to investigate the effectiveness of workplace interventions for occupational asthma."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7204
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMiscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks’ gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime. An estimated 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Miscarriage can lead to serious morbidity, including haemorrhage, infection, and even death, particularly in settings without adequate healthcare provision. Early miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and can be managed expectantly, medically or surgically. However, there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and risks of each option.\nObjectives\nTo estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different management methods for early miscarriage, and to provide rankings of the available methods according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile using a network meta-analysis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register (9 February 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 February 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of methods for miscarriage management. Early miscarriage was defined as less than or equal to 14 weeks of gestation, and included missed and incomplete miscarriage. Management of late miscarriages after 14 weeks of gestation (often referred to as intrauterine fetal deaths) was not eligible for inclusion in the review. Cluster- and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded non-randomised trials.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary outcomes of complete miscarriage and composite outcome of death or serious complications. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative effects for the primary outcomes are reported subgrouped by the type of miscarriage (incomplete and missed miscarriage). We also performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available methods.\nMain results\nOur network meta-analysis included 78 randomised trials involving 17,795 women from 37 countries. Most trials (71/78) were conducted in hospital settings and included women with missed or incomplete miscarriage. Across 158 trial arms, the following methods were used: 51 trial arms (33%) used misoprostol; 50 (32%) used suction aspiration; 26 (16%) used expectant management or placebo; 17 (11%) used dilatation and curettage; 11 (6%) used mifepristone plus misoprostol; and three (2%) used suction aspiration plus cervical preparation. Of these 78 studies, 71 (90%) contributed data in a usable form for meta-analysis.\nComplete miscarriage\nBased on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 59 trials (12,591 women), we found that five methods may be more effective than expectant management or placebo for achieving a complete miscarriage:\n· suction aspiration after cervical preparation (risk ratio (RR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.20, low-certainty evidence),\n· dilatation and curettage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.75, low-certainty evidence),\n· suction aspiration (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62, low-certainty evidence),\n· mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66, moderate-certainty evidence),\n· misoprostol (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, low-certainty evidence).\nThe highest ranked surgical method was suction aspiration after cervical preparation. The highest ranked non-surgical treatment was mifepristone plus misoprostol. All surgical methods were ranked higher than medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo.\nComposite outcome of death and serious complications\nBased on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 35 trials (8161 women), we found that four methods with available data were compatible with a wide range of treatment effects compared with expectant management or placebo:\n· dilatation and curettage (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.06, low-certainty evidence),\n· suction aspiration (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence),\n· misoprostol (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.15, low-certainty evidence),\n· mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84, low-certainty evidence).\nImportantly, no deaths were reported in these studies, thus this composite outcome was entirely composed of serious complications, including blood transfusions, uterine perforations, hysterectomies, and intensive care unit admissions. Expectant management and placebo ranked the lowest when compared with alternative treatment interventions.\nSubgroup analyses by type of miscarriage (missed or incomplete) agreed with the overall analysis in that surgical methods were the most effective treatment, followed by medical methods and then expectant management or placebo, but there are possible subgroup differences in the effectiveness of the available methods.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on relative effects from the network meta-analysis, all surgical and medical methods for managing a miscarriage may be more effective than expectant management or placebo. Surgical methods were ranked highest for managing a miscarriage, followed by medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Expectant management or placebo had the highest chance of serious complications, including the need for unplanned or emergency surgery. A subgroup analysis showed that surgical and medical methods may be more beneficial in women with missed miscarriage compared to women with incomplete miscarriage. Since type of miscarriage (missed and incomplete) appears to be a source of inconsistency and heterogeneity within these data, we acknowledge that the main network meta-analysis may be unreliable. However, we plan to explore this further in future updates and consider the primary analysis as separate networks for missed and incomplete miscarriage.\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": "Miscarriage can be managed expectantly (waiting for the pregnancy tissue to pass naturally), medically (tablets given to make the womb expel the pregnancy tissue) or surgically (removal of the pregnancy tissue during surgery). However, there is uncertainty about the effectiveness, safety, and side effects of the available methods for managing a miscarriage. The aim of this Cochrane Review is to find out which method is the most effective and safest with the least side effects. We collected and analysed all the relevant studies to answer this question."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7205
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChildren with motor impairments often have the motor speech disorder dysarthria, a condition which effects the tone, strength and co-ordination of any or all of the muscles used for speech. Resulting speech difficulties can range from mild, with slightly slurred articulation and breathy voice, to profound, with an inability to produce any recognisable words. Children with dysarthria are often prescribed communication aids to supplement their natural forms of communication. However, there is variation in practice regarding the provision of therapy focusing on voice and speech production. Descriptive studies have suggested that therapy may improve speech, but its effectiveness has not been evaluated.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether any speech and language therapy intervention aimed at improving the speech of children with dysarthria is more effective in increasing children's speech intelligibility or communicative participation than no intervention at all , and to compare the efficacy of individual types of speech language therapy in improving the speech intelligibility or communicative participation of children with dysarthria.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015 , Issue 7 ), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL , LLBA, ERIC, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, UK National Research Register and Dissertation Abstracts up to July 2015, handsearched relevant journals published between 1980 and July 2015, and searched proceedings of relevant conferences between 1996 to 2015. We placed no restrictions on the language or setting of the studies. A previous version of this review considered studies published up to April 2009. In this update we searched for studies published from April 2009 to July 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials and studies using quasi-experimental designs in which children were allocated to groups using non-random methods.\nData collection and analysis\nOne author (LP) conducted searches of all databases, journals and conference reports. All searches included a reliability check in which a second review author independently checked a random sample comprising 15% of all identified reports. We planned that two review authors would independently assess the quality and extract data from eligible studies.\nMain results\nNo randomised controlled trials or group studies were identified.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review found no evidence from randomised trials of the effectiveness of speech and language therapy interventions to improve the speech of children with early acquired dysarthria. Rigorous, fully powered randomised controlled trials are needed to investigate if the positive changes in children's speech observed in phase I and phase II studies are generalisable to the population of children with early acquired dysarthria served by speech and language therapy services. Research should examine change in children's speech production and intelligibility. It must also investigate children's participation in social and educational activities, and their quality of life, as well as the cost and acceptability of interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"The review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review aimed to investigate if therapy is generally effective for children with dysarthria acquired early in life, and if certain types of therapy may be better than others."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7206
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChildhood and adolescent mental health problems are a serious and growing concern worldwide. Research suggests that psychotherapy can have a significant and positive impact on children and adolescents with mental health problems, such as anxiety disorders, depression and conduct disorders. Client feedback tools serve as a method of monitoring clients' progress and providing feedback from clients to therapists during the therapeutic process. These tools may help to enhance clinicians' decision-making by allowing them to adapt their treatment plans as the therapy progresses, resulting in a reduction of treatment failures. Research has shown that client feedback tools have a positive effect on adults' psychotherapy. This review addresses whether feedback tools in child and adolescent therapy could help therapists to better treat their young clients.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of client feedback in psychological therapy on child and adolescent mental health outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR, Studies and References), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (1946-), Embase (1974-) and PsycINFO (1967-) to 3 April 2018. We did not apply any restriction on date, language or publication status to the search.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared client feedback to no client feedback in psychological therapies for children and adolescents.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed references for inclusion eligibility and extracted outcome, risk of bias and study characteristics data into customised forms. We contacted study authors to obtain missing data. We analysed dichotomous data using risk ratios (RRs) and calculated their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MDs), or standardised mean differences (SMDs) if different scales were used to measure the same outcome. We used a random-effects model for all analyses.\nMain results\nWe included six published RCTs, conducted in the USA (5 RCTs) and Israel (1 RCT), with 1097 children and adolescents (11 to 18 years old), in the review.\nWe are very uncertain about the effect of client feedback on improvement of symptoms, as reported by youth in the short term because we considered evidence to be of very low-certainty due to high risk of bias and very serious inconsistency in the effect estimates from the different studies. Similarly, we are very uncertain about the effect of client feedback on treatment acceptability, due to high risk of bias, imprecision in the results, and indirectness of measuring the outcome (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.61; 2 studies, 237 participants; very low-certainty).\nOverall, most studies reported and carried out randomisation and allocation concealment adequately. None of the studies were blinded or attempted to blind participants and personnel and were at high risk of performance bias, and only one study had blind outcome assessors. All of the studies were at high or unclear risk of attrition bias mainly due to poor, non-transparent reporting of participants' flow through the studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the paucity of high-quality data and considerable inconsistency in results from different studies, there is currently insufficient evidence to reach any firm conclusions regarding the role of client feedback in psychological therapies for children and adolescents with mental health problems, and further research on this important topic is needed.\nFuture studies should avoid risks of performance, detection and attrition biases, as seen in the studies included in this review. Studies from countries other than the USA are needed, as well as studies including children younger than 10 years.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What questions does this review aim to answer?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Some research suggests that client feedback has a positive impact on outcomes of psychotherapy with adults. We do not know whether client feedback works with children and adolescents."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7207
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAllergic rhinitis is a common condition affecting both adults and children. Patients experience symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing and nasal itching, which may affect their quality of life.\nNasal irrigation with saline (salty water), also known as nasal douching, washing or lavage, is a procedure that rinses the nasal cavity with isotonic or hypertonic saline solutions. It can be performed with low positive pressure from a spray, pump or squirt bottle, with a nebuliser or with gravity-based pressure in which the person instils saline into one nostril and allows it to drain out of the other. Saline solutions are available over the counter and can be used alone or as an adjunct to other therapies.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of nasal saline irrigation in people with allergic rhinitis.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 November 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nasal saline irrigation, delivered by any means and with any volume, tonicity and alkalinity, with (a) no nasal saline irrigation or (b) other pharmacological treatments in adults and children with allergic rhinitis. We included studies comparing nasal saline versus no saline, where all participants also received pharmacological treatment (intranasal corticosteroids or oral antihistamines).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were patient-reported disease severity and a common adverse effect - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), individual symptom scores, general HRQL, the adverse effects of local irritation or discomfort, ear symptoms (pain or pressure) and nasal endoscopy scores. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.\nMain results\nWe included 14 studies (747 participants). The studies included children (seven studies, 499 participants) and adults (seven studies, 248 participants). No studies reported outcomes beyond three months follow-up. Saline volumes ranged from 'very low' to 'high' volume. Where stated, studies used either hypertonic or isotonic saline solution.\nNasal saline versus no saline treatment\nAll seven studies (112 adults; 332 children) evaluating this comparison used different scoring systems for patient-reported disease severity, so we pooled the data using the standardised mean difference (SMD). Saline irrigation may improve patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline at up to four weeks (SMD -1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.84 to -0.81; 407 participants; 6 studies; low quality) and between four weeks and three months (SMD -1.44, 95% CI -2.39 to -0.48; 167 participants; 5 studies; low quality). Although the evidence was low quality the SMD values at both time points are considered large effect sizes. Subgroup analysis showed the improvement in both adults and children. Subgroup analyses for volume and tonicity were inconclusive due to heterogeneity.\nTwo studies reported methods for recording adverse effects and five studies mentioned them. Two studies (240 children) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group and three only reported no adverse effects in the saline group.\nOne study (48 children) reported disease-specific HRQL using a modified RCQ-36 scale. It was uncertain whether there was a difference between the groups at any of the specified time points (very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported.\nNasal saline versus no saline with adjuvant use of intranasal steroids or oral antihistamines\nThree studies (40 adults; 79 children) compared saline with intranasal steroids versus intranasal steroids alone; one study (14 adults) compared saline with oral antihistamines versus oral antihistamines alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient-reported disease severity at up to four weeks (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.34 to 0.15; 32 participants; 2 studies; very low quality) or from four weeks to three months (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.21; 58 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). Although none of the studies reported methods for recording adverse effects, three mentioned them: one study (40 adults; adjuvant intranasal steroids) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group; the other two only reported no adverse effects in the saline group.\nIt is uncertain if saline irrigation in addition to pharmacological treatment improved disease-specific HRQL at four weeks to three months, compared with pharmacological treatment alone (SMD -1.26, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.05; 54 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported.\nNasal saline versus intranasal steroids\nIt is uncertain if there was a difference in patient-reported disease severity between nasal saline and intranasal steroids at up to four weeks (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.65 to 3.77; 14 participants; 1 study), or between four weeks and three months (SMD 1.26, 95% CI -0.92 to 3.43; 97 participants; 3 studies), or indisease-specific HRQL between four weeks and three months (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.75; 83 participants; 2 studies). Only one study reported methods for recording adverse effects although three studies mentioned them. One (21 participants) reported two withdrawals due to adverse effects but did not describe these or state which group. Three studies reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) with saline, although one study reported that 27% of participants experienced local discomfort with steroid use. No other secondary outcomes were reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSaline irrigation may reduce patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline irrigation at up to three months in both adults and children with allergic rhinitis, with no reported adverse effects. No data were available for any outcomes beyond three months. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low. The included studies were generally small and used a range of different outcome measures to report disease severity scores, with unclear validation. This review did not include direct comparisons of saline types (e.g. different volume, tonicity).\nSince saline irrigation could provide a cheap, safe and acceptable alternative to intranasal steroids and antihistamines further high-quality, adequately powered research in this area is warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The overall quality of evidence for nasal saline irrigation compared with no saline treatment was eitherlow quality (our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect) or very low quality (we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect). This was because the studies were mostly very small and used different methods to measure the same outcome. Since saline irrigation could provide a cheap, safe and acceptable alternative to intranasal steroids and antihistamines further high-quality studies are needed."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7208
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSince the previous Cochrane Review on this topic in 2016, debate has continued surrounding a potential role for vitamin D in reducing risk of asthma exacerbation and improving asthma control. We therefore conducted an updated meta-analysis to include data from new trials completed since this date.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of administration of vitamin D or its hydroxylated metabolites in reducing the risk of severe asthma exacerbations (defined as those requiring treatment with systemic corticosteroids) and improving asthma symptom control.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trial Register and reference lists of articles. We contacted the authors of studies in order to identify additional trials. Date of last search: 8 September 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials of vitamin D in children and adults with asthma evaluating exacerbation risk or asthma symptom control, or both.\nData collection and analysis\nFour review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias. We obtained missing data from the authors where possible. We reported results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome was the incidence of severe asthma exacerbations requiring treatment with systemic corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of asthma exacerbations precipitating an emergency department visit or requiring hospital admission, or both, end-study childhood Asthma Control Test (cACT) or Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, and end-study % predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1).\nWe performed subgroup analyses to determine whether the effect of vitamin D on risk of asthma exacerbation was modified by baseline vitamin D status, vitamin D dose, frequency of dosing regimen, form of vitamin D given, and age of participants.\nMain results\nWe included 20 studies in this review; 15 trials involving a total of 1155 children and five trials involving a total of 1070 adults contributed data to analyses. Participant ages ranged from 1 to 84 years, with two trials providing data specific to participants under five years (n = 69) and eight trials providing data specific to participants aged 5 to 16 (n = 766). Across the trials, 1245 participants were male and 1229 were female, with two studies not reporting sex distribution. Fifteen trials contributed to the primary outcome analysis of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. The duration of trials ranged from three to 40 months; all but two investigated effects of administering cholecalciferol (vitamin D3). As in the previous Cochrane Review, the majority of participants had mild to moderate asthma, and profound vitamin D deficiency (25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) < 25 nmol/L) at baseline was rare.\nAdministration of vitamin D or its hydroxylated metabolites did not reduce or increase the proportion of participants experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 1778 participants; high-quality evidence). This equates to an absolute risk of 226 per 1000 (95% CI 185 to 273) in the pooled vitamin D group, compared to a baseline risk of 219 participants per 1000 in the pooled placebo group.\nWe also found no effect of vitamin D supplementation on the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (rate ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19; I2 = 60%; 10 studies, 1599 participants; high-quality evidence), or the time to first exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.15; I2 = 22%; 3 studies, 850 participants; high-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis did not reveal any evidence of effect modification by baseline vitamin D status, vitamin D dose, frequency of dosing regimen, or age. A single trial investigating administration of calcidiol reported a benefit of the intervention for the primary outcome of asthma control.\nVitamin D supplementation did not influence any secondary efficacy outcome meta-analysed, which were all based on moderate- or high-quality evidence. We observed no effect on the incidence of serious adverse events (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 12 studies, 1556 participants; high-quality evidence). The effect of vitamin D on fatal asthma exacerbations was not estimable, as no such events occurred in any trial. Six studies reported adverse reactions potentially attributable to vitamin D. These occurred across treatment and control arms and included hypercalciuria, hypervitaminosis D, kidney stones, gastrointestinal symptoms and mild itch. In one trial, we could not ascertain the total number of participants with hypercalciuria from the trial report.\nWe assessed three trials as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain; none of these contributed data to the analysis of the outcomes reported above. Sensitivity analyses that excluded these trials from each outcome to which they contributed did not change the null findings.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn contrast to findings of our previous Cochrane Review on this topic, this updated review does not find evidence to support a role for vitamin D supplementation or its hydroxylated metabolites to reduce risk of asthma exacerbations or improve asthma control. Participants with severe asthma and those with baseline 25(OH)D concentrations < 25 nmol/L were poorly represented, so further research is warranted here. A single study investigating effects of calcidiol yielded positive results, so further studies investigating effects of this metabolite are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of severe asthma attacks and asthma symptom control. We compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods.\nWe also analysed whether effects of vitamin D supplementation differed according to baseline vitamin D status, the dose or form of supplements administered, how often people took the supplements, or the age of participants."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7209
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFrostbite is a thermal injury caused when tissue is exposed to sub-zero temperatures (in degrees Celsius) long enough for ice crystals to form in the affected tissue. Depending on the degree of tissue damage, thrombosis, ischaemia, necrosis (tissue death), gangrene and ultimately amputation may occur. Several interventions for frostbite injuries have been proposed, such as hyperbaric oxygen therapy, sympathectomy (nerve block), thrombolytic (blood-thinning) therapy and vasodilating agents such as iloprost, reserpine, pentoxifylline and buflomedil, but the benefits and harms of these interventions are unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of the different management options for frostbite injuries.\nSearch methods\nOn 25 February 2020, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S), as well as trials registers. Shortly before publication, we searched Clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, OpenGrey and GreyLit (9 November 2020) again. We investigated references from relevant articles, and corresponded with a trial author.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any medical intervention, e.g. pharmacological therapy, topical treatments or rewarming techniques, for frostbite injuries to another treatment, placebo or no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data. We used Review Manager 5 for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess bias in the included trial. We assessed incidence of amputations, rates of serious and non-serious adverse events, acute pain, chronic pain, ability to perform activities of daily living, quality of life, withdrawal rate from medical therapy due to adverse events, occupational effects and mortality. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included one, open-label randomised trial involving 47 participants with severe frostbite injuries. We judged this trial to be at high risk of bias for performance bias, and uncertain risk for attrition bias; all other risk of bias domains we judged as low.\nAll participants underwent rapid rewarming, received 250 mg of aspirin and 400 mg intravascular (IV) buflomedil (since withdrawn from practice), and were then randomised to one of three treatment groups for the following eight days. Group 1 received additional IV buflomedil 400 mg for one hour per day. Group 2 received the prostacyclin, iloprost, 0.5 ng to 2 ng/kg/min IV for six hours per day. Group 3 received IV iloprost 2 ng/kg/min for six hours per day plus fibrinolysis with 100 mg recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) for the first day only.\nThe results suggest that iloprost and iloprost plus rtPA may reduce the rate of amputations in people with severe frostbite compared to buflomedil alone, RR 0.05 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.78; P = 0.03; very low-quality evidence) and RR 0.31 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.94; P = 0.04; very low-quality evidence), respectively. Iloprost may be as effective as iloprost plus rtPA at reducing the amputation rate, RR 0.14 (95% CI 0.01 to 2.56; P = 0.19; very low-quality evidence). There were no reported deaths or withdrawals due to adverse events in any of the groups; we assessed evidence for both outcomes as being of very low quality. Adverse events (including flushing, nausea, palpitations and vomiting) were common, but not reported separately by comparator arm (very low-quality evidence). The included study did not measure the outcomes of acute pain, chronic pain, ability to perform activities of daily living, quality of life or occupational effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a paucity of evidence regarding interventions for frostbite injuries. Very low-quality evidence from a single small trial indicates that iloprost, and iloprost plus rtPA, in combination with buflomedil may reduce the need for amputation in people with severe frostbite compared to buflomedil alone. However, buflomedil has been withdrawn from use. High quality randomised trials are needed to establish firm evidence for the treatment of frostbite injuries.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How reliable are these results?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "As we included only one, poorly reported RCT with possible problems in its design and a very small number of participants, our confidence in its findings are very low."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7210
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIt is becoming increasingly common to publish information about the quality and performance of healthcare organisations and individual professionals. However, we do not know how this information is used, or the extent to which such reporting leads to quality improvement by changing the behaviour of healthcare consumers, providers, and purchasers.\nObjectives\nTo estimate the effects of public release of performance data, from any source, on changing the healthcare utilisation behaviour of healthcare consumers, providers (professionals and organisations), and purchasers of care. In addition, we sought to estimate the effects on healthcare provider performance, patient outcomes, and staff morale.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 26 June 2017. We checked reference lists of all included studies to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised or non-randomised trials, interrupted time series, and controlled before-after studies of the effects of publicly releasing data regarding any aspect of the performance of healthcare organisations or professionals. Each study had to report at least one main outcome related to selecting or changing care.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data. For each study, we extracted data about the target groups (healthcare consumers, healthcare providers, and healthcare purchasers), performance data, main outcomes (choice of healthcare provider, and improvement by means of changes in care), and other outcomes (awareness, attitude, knowledge of performance data, and costs). Given the substantial degree of clinical and methodological heterogeneity between the studies, we presented the findings for each policy in a structured format, but did not undertake a meta-analysis.\nMain results\nWe included 12 studies that analysed data from more than 7570 providers (e.g. professionals and organisations), and a further 3,333,386 clinical encounters (e.g. patient referrals, prescriptions). We included four cluster-randomised trials, one cluster-non-randomised trial, six interrupted time series studies, and one controlled before-after study. Eight studies were undertaken in the USA, and one each in Canada, Korea, China, and The Netherlands. Four studies examined the effect of public release of performance data on consumer healthcare choices, and four on improving quality.\nThere was low-certainty evidence that public release of performance data may make little or no difference to long-term healthcare utilisation by healthcare consumers (3 studies; 18,294 insurance plan beneficiaries), or providers (4 studies; 3,000,000 births, and 67 healthcare providers), or to provider performance (1 study; 82 providers). However, there was also low-certainty evidence to suggest that public release of performance data may slightly improve some patient outcomes (5 studies, 315,092 hospitalisations, and 7502 providers). There was low-certainty evidence from a single study to suggest that public release of performance data may have differential effects on disadvantaged populations. There was no evidence about effects on healthcare utilisation decisions by purchasers, or adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe existing evidence base is inadequate to directly inform policy and practice. Further studies should consider whether public release of performance data can improve patient outcomes, as well as healthcare processes.\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": "Healthcare providers are increasingly expected to inform the public on how well they are performing. However, it is not yet known whether public release of performance data has a measurable influence on patients' choice of healthcare services, or whether it can truly drive improvements in the quality of health care."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7211
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLeg ulcers are chronic wounds of the lower leg, caused by poor blood flow, that can take a long time to heal. The pooling of blood in the veins can damage the skin and surrounding tissues, causing an ulcer to form. Venous leg ulcers are associated with impaired quality of life, reduced mobility, pain, stress and loss of dignity. The standard treatment for venous leg ulcers is compression bandages or stockings. Shock wave therapy may aid the healing of these wounds through the promotion of angiogenesis (the formation and development of blood vessels) and reduction of inflammation, though this process is poorly understood at present.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on the healing and management of venous leg ulceration.\nSearch methods\nIn April 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. We applied no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the healing and management of venous leg ulceration.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection. We planned that two review authors would also assess the risk of bias of included studies, extract study data and rate the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe found no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no RCTs assessing the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the healing and management of venous leg ulceration. The lack of high-quality evidence in this area highlights a gap in research and may serve to justify the need for further research and evidence to provide guidance concerning the use of this treatment option for this condition. Future trials should be of clear design and include concomitant use of the current best practice treatment, multilayer compression therapy. Recruitment should aspire to best represent patients seen in clinical practice and patient-related outcome measures should be included in study design.\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": "No evidence from randomised controlled trials was available to allow us to evaluate whether extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is effective for healing venous leg ulcers. Randomised controlled trials are medical studies where patients are chosen at random to receive different treatments. This type of trial provides the most reliable evidence and there is currently a lack of high-quality evidence in this area."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7212
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInfantile esotropia (IE) is the inward deviation of the eye. Various aspects of the clinical management of IE are unclear; mainly, the most effective type of intervention and the age at intervention.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effectiveness and optimal timing of surgical and non-surgical treatment options for IE to improve ocular alignment and achieve or allow the development of binocular single vision.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, one other database, and three trials registers (November 2021). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized trials and quasi-randomized trials comparing any surgical or non-surgical intervention for IE.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology and graded the certainty of the body of evidence for six outcomes using the GRADE classification.\nMain results\nWe included two studies with 234 children with IE. The first study enrolled 110 children (mean age 26.9 ± 14.5 months) with an onset of esotropia before six months of age, and large-angle IE defined as esotropia of ≥ 40 prism diopters. It was conducted between 2015 and 2018 in a tertiary care hospital in South Africa. It compared a maximum of three botulinum toxin injections with surgical intervention of bimedial rectus muscle recession, and children were followed for six months. There were limitations in study design and implementation; the risk of bias was high, or we had some concerns for most domains.\nSurgery may increase the incidence of treatment success, defined as orthophoria or residual esotropia of ≤ 10 prism diopters, compared with botulinum toxin injections, but the evidence was very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) of treatment success 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 2.77; 1 study, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The results should be read with caution because 23 children with > 60 prism diopters at baseline in the surgery arm also received botulinum toxin at the time of surgery to augment the recessions. There was no evidence of an important difference between surgery and botulinum toxin injections for over-correction (> 10 prism diopters) of deviation (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.37; 1 study, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or additional interventions required (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.19; 1 study, 101 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No major complications of surgery were observed in the surgery arm, while children experienced various complications in the botulinum toxin arm, including partial transient ptosis in 9 (16.7%) children, transient vertical deviation in 3 (5.6%) children, and consecutive exotropia in 13 (24.1%) children. No other outcome data for our prespecified outcomes were reported.\nThe second study enrolled 124 children with onset of esotropia before one year of age in 12 university hospitals in Germany and the Netherlands. It compared bilateral recession with unilateral recession surgeries, and followed children for three months postoperatively. Very low-certainty evidence suggested that there was no evidence of an important difference between bilateral and unilateral surgeries in the presence of binocular vision (numbers with event unclear, P = 0.35), and over-correction (RR of having exotropia 1.09, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.63; 1 study, 118 participants). Dissociated vertical deviation, latent nystagmus, or both were observed in 8% to 21% of participants.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMedial rectus recessions may increase the incidence of treatment success compared with botulinum toxin injections alone, but the evidence was very uncertain. No evidence of important difference was found between bilateral surgery and unilateral surgery.\nDue to insufficient evidence, it was not possible to resolve the controversies regarding type of surgery, non-surgical intervention, or age of intervention in this review. There is clearly a need to conduct good quality trials in these areas to improve the evidence base for the management of IE.\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 two relevant studies that enrolled a total of 234 children. One study was from South Africa (110 children). The children received either surgery or botulinum toxin injections, and were followed in six months. Botulinum toxin is a toxin that is used in small amounts to relax muscles, including those in the eyes. This study found that surgery may achieve better good eye alignment, with minimal risk, compared with botulinum toxin injections. But we have very little confidence in the evidence, because we only had one study, with a small number of children, and the study was not well-designed or conducted.\nThe other study enrolled 124 children in Germany and the Netherlands. It compared unilateral (i.e. one eye only) and bilateral (i.e. both eyes) surgery. They found that there was no evidence of an important difference in how much the eye turned in or how many children were able to use both eyes to focus on an object between these surgeries. But we have very little confidence in the evidence, because we only had one study, with a small number of children, and the study was not well-designed or conducted."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7213
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFibromyalgia is characterized by chronic widespread pain that leads to reduced physical function. Exercise training is commonly recommended as a treatment for management of symptoms. We examined the literature on resistance training for individuals with fibromyalgia. Resistance training is exercise performed against a progressive resistance with the intention of improving muscle strength, muscle endurance, muscle power, or a combination of these.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of resistance exercise training in adults with fibromyalgia. We compared resistance training versus control and versus other types of exercise training.\nSearch methods\nWe searched nine electronic databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Dissertation Abstracts, Current Controlled Trials, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, AMED) and other sources for published full-text articles. The date of the last search was 5 March 2013. Two review authors independently screened 1856 citations, 766 abstracts and 156 full-text articles. We included five studies that met our inclusion criteria.\nSelection criteria\nSelection criteria included: a) randomized clinical trial, b) diagnosis of fibromyalgia based on published criteria, c) adult sample, d) full-text publication, and e) inclusion of between-group data comparing resistance training versus a control or other physical activity intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nPairs of review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted intervention and outcome data. We resolved disagreements between the two review authors and questions regarding interpretation of study methods by discussion within the pairs or when necessary the issue was taken to the full team of 11 members. We extracted 21 outcomes of which seven were designated as major outcomes: multidimensional function, self reported physical function, pain, tenderness, muscle strength, attrition rates, and adverse effects. We evaluated benefits and harms of the interventions using standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) or risk ratios or Peto odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where two or more studies provided data for an outcome, we carried out a meta-analysis.\nMain results\nThe literature search yielded 1865 citations with five studies meeting the selection criteria. One of the studies that had three arms contributed data for two comparisons. In the included studies, there were 219 women participants with fibromyalgia, 95 of whom were assigned to resistance training programs. Three randomized trials compared 16 to 21 weeks of moderate- to high-intensity resistance training versus a control group. Two studies compared eight weeks of progressive resistance training (intensity as tolerated) using free weights or body weight resistance exercise versus aerobic training (ie, progressive treadmill walking, indoor and outdoor walking), and one study compared 12 weeks of low-intensity resistance training using hand weights (1 to 3 lbs (0.45 to 1.36 kg)) and elastic tubing versus flexibility exercise (static stretches to major muscle groups).\nStatistically significant differences (MD; 95% CI) favoring the resistance training interventions over control group(s) were found in multidimensional function (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) total decreased 16.75 units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -23.31 to -10.19), self reported physical function (-6.29 units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -10.45 to -2.13), pain (-3.3 cm on a 10-cm scale; 95% CI -6.35 to -0.26), tenderness (-1.84 out of 18 tender points; 95% CI -2.6 to -1.08), and muscle strength (27.32 kg force on bilateral concentric leg extension; 95% CI 18.28 to 36.36).\nDifferences between the resistance training group(s) and the aerobic training groups were not statistically significant for multidimensional function (5.48 on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -0.92 to 11.88), self reported physical function (-1.48 units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -6.69 to 3.74) or tenderness (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.30). There was a statistically significant reduction in pain (0.99 cm on a 10-cm scale; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.67) favoring the aerobic groups.\nStatistically significant differences were found between a resistance training group and a flexibility group favoring the resistance training group for multidimensional function (-6.49 FIQ units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -12.57 to -0.41) and pain (-0.88 cm on a 10-cm scale; 95% CI -1.57 to -0.19), but not for tenderness (-0.46 out of 18 tender points; 95% CI -1.56 to 0.64) or strength (4.77 foot pounds torque on concentric knee extension; 95% CI -2.40 to 11.94). This evidence was classified low quality due to the low number of studies and risk of bias assessment. There were no statistically significant differences in attrition rates between the interventions. In general, adverse effects were poorly recorded, but no serious adverse effects were reported. Assessment of risk of bias was hampered by poor written descriptions (eg, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors). The lack of a priori protocols and lack of care provider blinding were also identified as methodologic concerns.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence (rated as low quality) suggested that moderate- and moderate- to high-intensity resistance training improves multidimensional function, pain, tenderness, and muscle strength in women with fibromyalgia. The evidence (rated as low quality) also suggested that eight weeks of aerobic exercise was superior to moderate-intensity resistance training for improving pain in women with fibromyalgia. There was low-quality evidence that 12 weeks of low-intensity resistance training was superior to flexibility exercise training in women with fibromyalgia for improvements in pain and multidimensional function. There was low-quality evidence that women with fibromyalgia can safely perform moderate- to high-resistance training.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Overall well-being (multidimensional function) on a scale of 0 to 100 units\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Women who did resistance training rated their well-being 25 units better while women who did not do resistance training rated their well-being 8 units better.\nTherefore, women who did resistance training rated their well-being 17 units better at the end of the studies than those who did not do resistance training."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7214
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPelvic, hip, and long bone fractures can result in significant bleeding at the time of injury, with further blood loss if they are treated with surgical fixation. People undergoing surgery are therefore at risk of requiring a blood transfusion and may be at risk of peri-operative anaemia. Pharmacological interventions for blood conservation may reduce the risk of requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion and associated complications.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of different pharmacological interventions for reducing blood loss in definitive surgical fixation of the hip, pelvic, and long bones.\nSearch methods\nWe used a predefined search strategy to search CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Transfusion Evidence Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) from inception to 7 April 2022, without restrictions on language, year, or publication status.\nWe handsearched reference lists of included trials to identify further relevant trials. We contacted authors of ongoing trials to acquire any unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people who underwent trauma (non-elective) surgery for definitive fixation of hip, pelvic, and long bone (pelvis, tibia, femur, humerus, radius, ulna and clavicle) fractures only. There were no restrictions on gender, ethnicity, or age.\nWe excluded planned (elective) procedures (e.g. scheduled total hip arthroplasty), and studies published since 2010 that had not been prospectively registered.\nEligible interventions included: antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid, aprotinin, epsilon-aminocaproic acid), desmopressin, factor VIIa and XIII, fibrinogen, fibrin sealants, and non-fibrin sealants.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We did not perform a network meta-analysis due to lack of data.\nMain results\nWe included 13 RCTs (929 participants), published between 2005 and 2021. Three trials did not report any of our predefined outcomes and so were not included in quantitative analyses (all were tranexamic acid versus placebo).\nWe identified three comparisons of interest: intravenous tranexamic acid versus placebo; topical tranexamic acid versus placebo; and recombinant factor VIIa versus placebo. We rated the certainty of evidence as very low to low across all outcomes.\nComparison 1. Intravenous tranexamic acid versus placebo\nIntravenous tranexamic acid compared to placebo may reduce the risk of requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion up to 30 days (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.69; 6 RCTs, 457 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.77; 2 RCTs, 147 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nIt may result in little to no difference in risk of participants experiencing myocardial infarction (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.03; 2 RCTs, 199 participants; low-certainty evidence), and cerebrovascular accident/stroke (RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.02; 3 RCTs, 324 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain if there is a difference between groups for risk of deep vein thrombosis (Peto OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.22 to 21.35; 4 RCTs, 329 participants, very low-certainty evidence), pulmonary embolism (Peto OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.66; 4 RCTs, 329 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and suspected serious drug reactions (RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.03; 2 RCTs, 185 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nNo data were available for number of red blood cell units transfused, reoperation, or acute transfusion reaction.\nWe downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision (wide confidence intervals around the estimate and small sample size, particularly for rare events), and risk of bias (unclear or high risk methods of blinding and allocation concealment in the assessment of subjective measures), and upgraded the evidence for transfusion requirement for a large effect.\nComparison 2. Topical tranexamic acid versus placebo\nWe are uncertain if there is a difference between topical tranexamic acid and placebo for risk of requiring an allogeneic blood transfusion (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.22; 2 RCTs, 101 participants), all-cause mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.10 to 0.10; 1 RCT, 36 participants), risk of participants experiencing myocardial infarction (Peto OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.00 to 7.62; 1 RCT, 36 participants), cerebrovascular accident/stroke (RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.06; 1 RCT, 65 participants); and deep vein thrombosis (Peto OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.77; 2 RCTs, 101 participants).\nAll outcomes reported were very low-certainty evidence.\nNo data were available for number of red blood cell units transfused, reoperation, incidence of pulmonary embolism, acute transfusion reaction, or suspected serious drug reactions.\nWe downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision (wide confidence intervals around the estimate and small sample size, particularly for rare events), inconsistency (moderate heterogeneity), and risk of bias (unclear or high risk methods of blinding and allocation concealment in the assessment of subjective measures, and high risk of attrition and reporting biases in one trial).\nComparison 3. Recombinant factor VIIa versus placebo\nOnly one RCT of 48 participants reported data for recombinant factor VIIa versus placebo, so we have not presented the results here.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe cannot draw conclusions from the current evidence due to lack of data. Most published studies included in our analyses assessed the use of tranexamic acid (compared to placebo, or using different routes of administration).\nWe identified 27 prospectively registered ongoing RCTs (total target recruitment of 4177 participants by end of 2023). The ongoing trials create six new comparisons: tranexamic acid (tablet + injection) versus placebo; intravenous tranexamic acid versus oral tranexamic acid; topical tranexamic acid versus oral tranexamic acid; different intravenous tranexamic acid dosing regimes; topical tranexamic acid versus topical fibrin glue; and fibrinogen (injection) versus placebo.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Topical tranexamic acid\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We are uncertain if topical tranexamic acid affects the need for blood transfusion, deaths from any cause, or the number of people who experience a heart attack, stroke, or DVT. There was no evidence to show whether it affected the need for reoperation for bleeding, or the number of people with pulmonary embolism, severe reactions to blood transfusion, or suspected serious reactions to the medicine."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7215
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGeneral health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. They aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used individual screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is therefore important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm. This is the first update of the review published in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers on 31 January 2018. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One review author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trial authors about additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adults unselected for disease or risk factors. We did not include geriatric trials. We defined health checks as screening for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted trial authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. When possible, we analysed the results with a random-effects model meta-analysis; otherwise, we did a narrative synthesis.\nMain results\nWe included 17 trials, 15 of which reported outcome data (251,891 participants). Risk of bias was generally low for our primary outcomes. Health checks have little or no effect on total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03; 11 trials; 233,298 participants and 21,535 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I2 = 0%), or cancer mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; 8 trials; 139,290 participants and 3663 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I2 = 33%), and probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 9 trials; 170,227 participants and 6237 deaths; moderate-certainty evidence; I2 = 65%). Health checks have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal ischaemic heart disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03; 4 trials; 164,881 persons, 10,325 events; high-certainty evidence; I2 = 11%), and probably have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 3 trials; 107,421 persons, 4543 events; moderate-certainty evidence, I2 = 53%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nGeneral health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The review authors searched for studies published up to 31 January 2018."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7216
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAbortion is common worldwide and increasingly abortions are performed at less than 14 weeks’ gestation using medical methods, specifically using a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol. Medical abortion is known to be a painful process, but the optimal method of pain management is unclear. We sought to identify and compare pain management regimens for medical abortion before 14 weeks’ gestation.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\nTo determine if there is evidence of superiority of any particular pain relief regimen in the management of combination medical abortion (mifepristone + misoprostol) under 14 weeks' gestation (i.e. up to 13 + 6 weeks or 97 days).\nSecondary objectives\nTo compare the rate of gastrointestinal side effects resulting from different methods of analgesia\nTo compare the rate of complete abortion resulting from different methods of analgesia during medical abortion\nTo determine if the induction-to-abortion interval is associated with different methods of analgesia\nTo determine if any method of analgesia is associated with unscheduled contact with the care provider in relation to pain.\nSearch methods\nOn 21 August 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACs, PsycINFO, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov together with reference checking and handsearching of conference abstracts of relevant learned societies and professional organisations to identify further studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs)) of any pain relief intervention (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for mifepristone-misoprostol combination medical abortion of pregnancies less than 14 weeks’ gestation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (JRW and MA) independently assessed all identified papers for inclusion and risks of bias, resolving any discrepancies through discussion with a third and fourth author as required (CM and SC). Two review authors independently conducted data extraction, including calculations of pain relief scores, and checked for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs and one NRSI. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, interventions and outcome reporting, we were unable to perform meta-analysis for any of the primary or secondary outcomes in this review.\nOnly one study found evidence of an effect between interventions on pain score: a prophylactic dose of ibuprofen 1600 mg likely reduces the pain score when compared to a dose of paracetamol 2000 mg (mean difference (MD) 2.26 out of 10 lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.00 to 1.52 lower; 1 RCT 108 women; moderate-certainty evidence).\nThere may be little to no difference in pain score when comparing pregabalin 300 mg with placebo (MD 0.5 out of 10 lower, 95% CI 1.41 lower to 0.41 higher; 1 RCT, 107 women; low-certainty evidence).\nThere may be little to no difference in pain score when comparing ibuprofen 800 mg with placebo (MD 1.4 out of 10 lower, 95% CI 3.33 lower to 0.53 higher; 1 RCT, 61 women; low-certainty evidence).\nAmbulation or non-ambulation during medical abortion treatment may have little to no effect on pain score, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD 0.1 out of 5 higher, 95% CI 0.26 lower to 0.46 higher; 1 NRSI, 130 women; very low-certainty evidence).\nThere may be little to no difference in pain score when comparing therapeutic versus prophylactic administration of ibuprofen 800 mg (MD 0.2 out of 10 higher, 95% CI 0.41 lower to 0.81 higher; 1 RCT, 228 women; low-certainty evidence).\nOther outcomes of interest were reported inconsistently across studies. Where these outcomes were reported, there was no evidence of difference in incidence of gastrointestinal side effects, complete abortion rate, interval between misoprostol administration to pregnancy expulsion, unscheduled contact with a care provider, patient satisfaction with analgesia regimen nor patient satisfaction with abortion experience overall. However, the certainty of evidence was very low to low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe findings of this review provide some support for the use of ibuprofen as a single dose given with misoprostol prophylactically, or in response to pain as needed. The optimal dosing of ibuprofen is unclear, but a single dose of ibuprofen 1600 mg was shown to be effective, and it was less certain whether 800 mg was effective. Paracetamol 2000 mg does not improve pain scores as much as ibuprofen 1600 mg, however its use does not appear to cause greater frequency of side effects or reduce the success of the abortion.\nA single dose of pregabalin 300 mg does not affect pain scores during medical abortion, but like paracetamol, does not appear to cause harm. Ambulation or non-ambulation during the medical abortion procedure does not appear to affect pain scores, outcomes, or duration of treatment and so women can be advised to mobilise or not, as they wish.\nThe majority of outcomes in this review had low- to very low-certainty evidence, primarily due to small sample sizes and two studies at high risk of bias. High-quality, large-scale RCT research is needed for pain management during medical abortion at gestations less than 14 weeks. Consistent recording of pain with a validated measure would be of value to the field going forward.\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 five different studies, all of them looking at different kinds of treatment. Two studies were conducted in Israel, one of which compared ibuprofen with placebo, and another compared ibuprofen with paracetamol. Two studies were conducted in the USA, one compared ibuprofen given in response to pain or preventatively, and another compared pregabalin with placebo. The final study was conducted in the UK and compared being mobile during treatment with resting.\n"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7217
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDementia is a chronic condition which progressively affects memory and other cognitive functions, social behaviour, and ability to carry out daily activities. To date, no treatment is clearly effective in preventing progression of the disease, and most treatments are symptomatic, often aiming to improve people's psychological symptoms or behaviours which are challenging for carers. A range of new therapeutic strategies has been evaluated in research, and the use of trained animals in therapy sessions, termed animal-assisted therapy (AAT), is receiving increasing attention.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of animal-assisted therapy for people with dementia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS: the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 5 September 2019. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of major healthcare databases, trial registries, and grey literature sources. We also searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ISI Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO's trial registry portal.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised trials, and randomised cross-over trials that compared AAT versus no AAT, AAT using live animals versus alternatives such as robots or toys, or AAT versus any other active intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data using the standard methods of Cochrane Dementia. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where appropriate.\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs from 10 reports. All nine studies were conducted in Europe and the US. Six studies were parallel-group, individually randomised RCTs; one was a randomised cross-over trial; and two were cluster-RCTs that were possibly related where randomisation took place at the level of the day care and nursing home. We identified two ongoing trials from trial registries.\nThere were three comparisons: AAT versus no AAT (standard care or various non-animal-related activities), AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, and AAT using live animals versus the use of a soft animal toy. The studies evaluated 305 participants with dementia. One study used horses and the remainder used dogs as the therapy animal. The duration of the intervention ranged from six weeks to six months, and the therapy sessions lasted between 10 and 90 minutes each, with a frequency ranging from one session every two weeks to two sessions per week. There was a wide variety of instruments used to measure the outcomes. All studies were at high risk of performance bias and unclear risk of selection bias. Our certainty about the results for all major outcomes was very low to moderate.\nComparing AAT versus no AAT, participants who received AAT may be slightly less depressed after the intervention (MD –2.87, 95% CI –5.24 to –0.50; 2 studies, 83 participants; low-certainty evidence), but they did not appear to have improved quality of life (MD 0.45, 95% CI –1.28 to 2.18; 3 studies, 164 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no clear differences in all other major outcomes, including social functioning (MD –0.40, 95% CI –3.41 to 2.61; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence), problematic behaviour (SMD –0.34, 95% CI –0.98 to 0.30; 3 studies, 142 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), agitation (SMD –0.39, 95% CI –0.89 to 0.10; 3 studies, 143 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), activities of daily living (MD 4.65, 95% CI –16.05 to 25.35; 1 study, 37 participants; low-certainty evidence), and self-care ability (MD 2.20, 95% CI –1.23 to 5.63; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on adverse events.\nComparing AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, one study (68 participants) found mixed effects on social function, with longer duration of physical contact but shorter duration of talking in participants who received AAT using live animals versus robotic animals (median: 93 seconds with live versus 28 seconds with robotic for physical contact; 164 seconds with live versus 206 seconds with robotic for talk directed at a person; 263 seconds with live versus 307 seconds with robotic for talk in total). Another study showed no clear differences between groups in behaviour measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (MD –6.96, 95% CI –14.58 to 0.66; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence) or quality of life (MD –2.42, 95% CI –5.71 to 0.87; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on the other outcomes.\nComparing AAT using live animals versus a soft toy cat, one study (64 participants) evaluated only social functioning, in the form of duration of contact and talking. The data were expressed as median and interquartile ranges. Duration of contact was slightly longer in participants in the AAT group and duration of talking slightly longer in those exposed to the toy cat. This was low-certainty evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low-certainty evidence that AAT may slightly reduce depressive symptoms in people with dementia. We found no clear evidence that AAT affects other outcomes in this population, with our certainty in the evidence ranging from very-low to moderate depending on the outcome. We found no evidence on safety or effects on the animals. Therefore, clear conclusions cannot yet be drawn about the overall benefits and risks of AAT in people with dementia. Further well-conducted RCTs are needed to improve the certainty of the evidence. In view of the difficulty in achieving blinding of participants and personnel in such trials, future RCTs should work on blinding outcome assessors, document allocation methods clearly, and include major patient-important outcomes such as affect, emotional and social functioning, quality of life, adverse events, and outcomes for animals.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We took several factors into account when deciding how certain we could be of our results. In this review, two main factors reduced our level of certainty. First, for all the outcomes we looked at, there was only a small number of studies and participants. Second, we thought there was a significant risk that all of the results could have been biased by the way the studies were designed or conducted. For a few outcomes, our confidence was also reduced by inconsistent results between studies. Overall, our certainty about the results ranged from very low to moderate."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7218
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nResistant hypertension is highly prevalent among the general hypertensive population and the clinical management of this condition remains problematic. Different approaches, including a more intensified antihypertensive therapy, lifestyle modifications or both, have largely failed to improve patients' outcomes and to reduce cardiovascular and renal risk. As renal sympathetic hyperactivity is a major driver of resistant hypertension, in the last decade renal sympathetic ablation (renal denervation) has been proposed as a possible therapeutic alternative to treat this condition.\nObjectives\nWe sought to evaluate the short- and long-term effects of renal denervation in individuals with resistant hypertension on clinical end points, including fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, hospital admissions, quality of life, blood pressure control, left ventricular hypertrophy, cardiovascular and metabolic profile and kidney function, as well as the potential adverse events related to the procedure.\nSearch methods\nFor this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to 3 November 2020: Cochrane Hypertension’s Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 11), Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (via CENTRAL) and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for ongoing trials. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared renal denervation to standard therapy or sham procedure to treat resistant hypertension, without language restriction.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We summarised treatment effects on available clinical outcomes and adverse events using random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed heterogeneity in estimated treatment effects using Chi² and I² statistics. We calculated summary treatment estimates as a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes, and a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Certainty of evidence has been assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe found 15 eligible studies (1416 participants). In four studies, renal denervation was compared to sham procedure; in the remaining studies, renal denervation was tested against standard or intensified antihypertensive therapy. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for allocation concealment and blinding.\nWhen compared to control, there was low-certainty evidence that renal denervation had little or no effect on the risk of myocardial infarction (4 studies, 742 participants; RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.84), ischaemic stroke (5 studies, 892 participants; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.95), unstable angina (3 studies, 270 participants; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.89) or hospitalisation (3 studies, 743 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.11). Based on moderate-certainty evidence, renal denervation may reduce 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) systolic BP (9 studies, 1045 participants; MD -5.29 mmHg, 95% CI -10.46 to -0.13), ABPM diastolic BP (8 studies, 1004 participants; MD -3.75 mmHg, 95% CI -7.10 to -0.39) and office diastolic BP (8 studies, 1049 participants; MD -4.61 mmHg, 95% CI -8.23 to -0.99). Conversely, this procedure had little or no effect on office systolic BP (10 studies, 1090 participants; MD -5.92 mmHg, 95% CI -12.94 to 1.10). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested that renal denervation may not reduce serum creatinine (5 studies, 721 participants, MD 0.03 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.13) and may not increase the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or creatinine clearance (6 studies, 822 participants; MD -2.56 mL/min, 95% CI -7.53 to 2.42).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn patients with resistant hypertension, there is low-certainty evidence that renal denervation does not improve major cardiovascular outomes and renal function. Conversely, moderate-certainty evidence exists that it may improve 24h ABPM and diastolic office-measured BP. Future trials measuring patient-centred instead of surrogate outcomes, with longer follow-up periods, larger sample size and more standardised procedural methods are necessary to clarify the utility of this procedure in this population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Renal denervation is a treatment that involves destroying renal nerves through a minimally invasive catheter-based technique to treat high blood pressure. We wanted to know if renal denervation would safely reduce blood pressure and improve quality of life in people with resistant hypertension."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7219
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStroke is the second leading cause of death and a major cause of morbidity worldwide. Retrospective clinical and animal studies have demonstrated neuroprotective effects of iron chelators in people with haemorrhagic or ischaemic stroke. This is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of iron-chelating drugs in people with acute stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (2 September 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2019, Issue 9; 2 September 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (2 September 2019), Embase Ovid (2 September 2019), and Science Citation Index (2 September 2019). We also searched ongoing trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of iron chelators versus no iron chelators or placebo for the treatment of acute stroke, including subarachnoid haemorrhage.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the search results. We obtained the full texts of potentially relevant studies and evaluated them for eligibility. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nTwo RCTs (333 participants) were eligible for inclusion; both compared the iron-chelating agent deferoxamine against placebo. Both studies evaluated participants with spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage. We assessed one study to have a low risk of bias; the other study had potential sources of bias.\nThe limited and heterogeneous data did not allow for meta-analysis of the outcome parameters. The evidence suggests that administration of deferoxamine may result in little to no difference in deaths (8% in placebo vs 8% in deferoxamine at 180 days; 1 RCT, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). These RCTs suggest that there may be little to no difference in good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 2) between groups at 30, 90 and 180 days (placebo vs deferoxamine: 67% vs 57% at 30 days and 36% vs 45% at 180 days; 2 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). One RCT suggests that administration of deferoxamine may not increase the number of serious adverse events or deaths (placebo vs deferoxamine: 33% vs 27% at 180 days; risk ratio 0.81, 95 % confidence interval 0.57 to 1.16; 1 RCT, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were available on any deaths within the treatment period. Deferoxamine may result in little to no difference in the evolution of National Institute of Health Stroke Scale scores from baseline to 90 days (placebo vs deferoxamine: 13 to 4 vs 13 to 3; P = 0.37; 2 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). Deferoxamine may slightly reduce relative oedema surrounding intracerebral haemorrhage at 15 days (placebo vs deferoxamine: 1.91 vs 10.26; P = 0.042; 2 RCTs, 333 participants; low-certainty evidence). Neither study reported quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified two eligible RCTs for assessment. We could not demonstrate any benefit for the use of iron chelators in spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage. The added value of iron-chelating therapy in people with ischaemic stroke or subarachnoid haemorrhage remains unknown.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The updated search was performed on 2 September 2019."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7220
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGastro-oesophageal reflux disease is a particularly common condition among preterm and low birth weight infants. These infants are more likely to have excessive regurgitation, as they do not have a fully developed antireflux mechanism. Preterm and low birth weight infants who are unable to suck oral feeds are required to be fed via an intragastric tube for varying lengths of time. Intragastric tube feeding can be delivered by the intermittent bolus method or by the continuous feeding method. Use of continuous or intermittent bolus intragastric feeding may have a positive or negative effect on the incidence or severity of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.\nObjectives\n• To determine whether continuous or intermittent bolus intragastric tube feeding reduces the number of episodes and the duration of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) in preterm and low birth weight infants\n• To perform subgroup analyses for gestational age; birth weight; age in days from birth at full enteral feeding via intragastric tube (breast versus bottle); frequency of intermittent bolus feed; and type of medication for treatment of GORD (only if medication was prescribed and was given similarly to both intervention groups)\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 7), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), on 8 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nPublished and unpublished RCTs and quasi-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in this review, as were cluster-randomised and cross-over randomised trials that compared the effects of continuous versus intermittent bolus intragastric tube feeding on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in preterm and low birth weight infants.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility and quality. We planned to use the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe found no trials that met the inclusion criteria for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe did not identify any randomised trials that evaluated the effects of continuous versus intermittent bolus intragastric tube feeding on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in preterm and low birth weight infants. Well-designed and adequately powered trials are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We did not identify any studies that could be included in this review. Studies are needed to evaluate which method of intragastric feeding is more effective for reducing gastro-oesophageal reflux in preterm and low birth weight infants"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7221
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction.\nObjectives\nTo assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods.\nOur primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results.\nThere was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I2 = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I2 = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThere was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty.\nThere was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I2 = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons).\nBupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision.\nFindings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability.\nFurther studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review updates our previous review. The evidence is up to date to April 2022."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7222
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPharmacological prophylaxis has been proven to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in individuals with atherosclerotic occlusive arterial disease. However, the role of prophylaxis in individuals with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains unclear. Several studies have shown that despite successful repair, those people with AAA have a poorer rate of survival than healthy controls. People with AAA have an increased prevalence of coronary heart disease and risk of cardiovascular events. Despite this association, little is known about the effectiveness of pharmacological prophylaxis in reducing cardiovascular risk in people with AAA. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo determine the long-term effectiveness of antiplatelet, antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medication in reducing mortality and cardiovascular events in people with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).\nSearch methods\nFor this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (14 April 2016). In addition, the CIS searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 3) and trials registries (14 April 2016) and We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials in which people with AAA were randomly allocated to one prophylactic treatment versus another, a different regimen of the same treatment, a placebo, or no treatment were eligible for inclusion in this review. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, and completed quality assessment and data extraction. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. Only one study met the inclusion criteria of the review, therefore we were unable to perform meta-analysis.\nMain results\nNo new studies met the inclusion criteria for this update. We included one randomised controlled trial in the review. A subgroup of 227 participants with AAA received either metoprolol (N = 111) or placebo (N = 116). There was no clear evidence that metoprolol reduced all-cause mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.41), cardiovascular death (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.76), AAA-related death (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.92) or increased nonfatal cardiovascular events (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.57) 30 days postoperatively. Furthermore, at six months postoperatively, estimated effects were compatible with benefit and harm for all-cause mortality (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.95), cardiovascular death (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.39) and nonfatal cardiovascular events (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.35). Adverse drug effects were reported for the whole study population and were not available for the subgroup of participants with AAA. We considered the study to be at a generally low risk of bias. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for all outcomes to low. We downgraded the quality of evidence for imprecision as only one study with a small number of participants was available, the number of events was small and the result was consistent with benefit and harm.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the limited number of included trials, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of cardiovascular prophylaxis in reducing mortality and cardiovascular events in people with AAA. Further good-quality randomised controlled trials that examine many types of prophylaxis with long-term follow-up are required before firm conclusions can be made.\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": "Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a potentially life-threatening condition where the aorta enlarges and can ultimately burst, leading to massive internal bleeding. Current guidelines recommend that AAAs of 55 mm or more should be surgically repaired because, at this size, the risk of rupture outweighs the risk of surgical repair. AAAs between 30 mm and 54 mm in size are not as high risk and are generally monitored by regular scans to check for further enlargement. Recent research has shown that even after the aneurysm is repaired, the survival rate in people with AAA is poorer than in people without AAA. In most cases, the cause of death is a cardiovascular event, such as a heart attack or a stroke. Conditions such as high blood pressure or high cholesterol increase the risk of cardiovascular death. However, both conditions can be reversed through medical treatment. Given the increased risk of mortality with AAA, it is important to determine which medical treatment is most effective in preventing cardiovascular death in people with AAA.\nIn this review, researchers from Cochrane examined the effectiveness of medical treatment to treat vascular risk factors and reduce deaths and cardiovascular deaths and events in people with an AAA."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7223
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as important.\nWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.\nAs the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can occur in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) relating to genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and for other unknown reasons.\nAntiepileptic (anticonvulsant) drugs, which were originally developed to treat convulsions in people with epilepsy, have in recent years been used to provide pain relief in adults for many chronic painful conditions and are now recommended for the treatment of chronic pain in the WHO list of essential medicines. Known side effects of antiepileptic drugs range from sweating, headache, elevated temperature, nausea, and abdominal pain to more serious effects including mental or motor function impairment.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antiepileptic drugs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews as well as online clinical trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, by any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antiepileptic drug with placebo or an active comparator.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods if data were available. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included two studies with a total of 141 participants (aged 7 to 18 years) with chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-I), or fibromyalgia. One study investigated pregabalin versus placebo in participants with fibromyalgia (107 participants), and the other study investigated gabapentin versus amitriptyline in participants with CRPS-I or neuropathic pain (34 participants). We were unable to perform any quantitative analysis.\nRisk of bias for the two included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation (low to unclear risk), blinding of outcome assessors (low to unclear risk), reporting bias (low to unclear risk), the size of the study populations (high risk), and industry funding in the 'other' domain (low to unclear risk). We judged the remaining domains of sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and attrition as low risk of bias.\nPrimary outcomes\nOne study (gabapentin 900 mg/day versus amitriptyline 10 mg/day, 34 participants, for 6 weeks) did not report our primary outcomes.\nThe second study (pregabalin 75 to 450 mg/day versus placebo 75 to 450 mg/day, 107 participants, for 15 weeks) reported no significant change in pain scores for pain relief of 30% or greater between pregabalin 18/54 (33.3%), and placebo 16/51 (31.4%), P = 0.83 (very low-quality evidence). This study also reported Patient Global Impression of Change, with the percentage of participants feeling \"much or very much improved\" with pregabalin 53.1%, and placebo 29.5% (very low-quality evidence).\nSecondary outcomes\nIn one small study, adverse events were uncommon: gabapentin 2 participants (2 adverse events); amitriptyline 1 participant (1 adverse event) (6-week trial). The second study reported a higher number of adverse events: pregabalin 38 participants (167 adverse events); placebo 34 participants (132 adverse events) (15-week trial) (very low-quality evidence).\nWithdrawals due to adverse events were infrequent in both studies: pregabalin (4 participants), placebo (4 participants), gabapentin (2 participants), and amitriptyline (1 participant) (very low-quality evidence).\nSerious adverse events were reported in both studies. One study reported only one serious adverse event (cholelithiasis and major depression resulting in hospitalisation in the pregabalin group) and the other study reported no serious adverse events (very low-quality evidence).\nThere were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes.\nQuality of evidence\nFor the outcomes with available data, we downgraded the quality of the evidence by three levels to very low-quality due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review identified only two small studies, with insufficient data for analysis.\nAs we could undertake no meta-analysis, we were unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we could not comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life.\nWe know from adult randomised controlled trials that some antiepileptics, such as gabapentin and pregabalin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Bottom line\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We are uncertain as to whether antiepileptic drugs provide pain relief for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. We do not have evidence to suggest that one type of antiepileptic drug is more effective than another."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7224
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEndometrial polyps, which are benign growths of the endometrium, may be a factor in female subfertility. Possible mechanisms include physical interference with gamete transport, alteration of the endometrial milieu and unresponsiveness to the cyclical global endometrial changes. As such polyps remain mostly asymptomatic, their diagnosis is often incidental during routine investigations prior to embarking on assisted reproductive treatment. Transvaginal sonography, hysterosalpingography and saline infusion sonography are the diagnostic tools most commonly employed. However, hysteroscopy remains the gold standard for diagnosis, as well as for treatment. Due to the possible effect of endometrial polyps on fertility, their removal prior to any subfertility treatment is widely practiced.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of removal of endometrial polyps in subfertile women.\nSearch methods\nElectronic databases were searched, including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and trial registers. The reference lists of identified articles were checked. The last search was performed on 30 July 2014.\nSelection criteria\nOnly randomised controlled trials, reporting pregnancy or live birth rates and complication rates as primary or secondary outcomes, in which polyps were removed surgically prior to treatment of subfertility were eligible for inclusion. The diagnosis of endometrial polyps was required to be made by transvaginal ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, saline infusion, sono-hysterography or hysteroscopy. Any surgical technique of polyp removal was acceptable, with no intervention in the control groups.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the titles, abstracts and full articles to assess their suitability for inclusion in this review. Quality assessment was attempted independently by two authors with discrepancies being settled by consensus or consultation with a third review author.\nNo data extraction was performed due to the absence of useable data in the one eligible study. If there had been data to include, two review authors would have independently extracted the data from the studies using a data extraction form designed and pilot tested by the authors. Any disagreements would have been resolved by discussion or by a third review author.\nMain results\nOnly one randomised controlled trial of endometrial polypectomy was identified for inclusion. However, a single set of data could not be extracted from this study due to internal inconsistencies of the results reported. Attempts to contact the authors to resolve the issue were unsuccessful, by phone, post and e-mail.\nAuthors' conclusions\nRemoval of endometrial polyps in subfertile women is commonly being performed in many countries with an aim to improve the reproductive outcome. We did not identify any analysable randomised trials which would allow us to reach any sound scientific conclusions on the efficacy of endometrial polypectomy in subfertile women. Well designed, methodologically sound, randomised controlled trials are urgently 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": "Cochrane authors investigated whether the removal of endometrial polyps in women presenting with subfertility was safe and whether it improved the chance of pregnancy."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7225
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPatients with advanced lung cancer have a high symptom burden, which is often complicated by coexisting conditions. These issues, combined with the indirect effects of cancer treatment, can cumulatively lead patients to continued deconditioning and low exercise capacity. This is a concern as exercise capacity is considered a measure of whole body health, and is critical in a patient's ability to participate in life activities and tolerate difficult treatments. There is evidence that exercise training improves exercise capacity and other outcomes, such as muscle force and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), in cancer survivors. However, the effectiveness of exercise training on these outcomes in people with advanced lung cancer is currently unclear.\nObjectives\nThe primary aim of this review was to investigate the effects of exercise training on exercise capacity in adults with advanced lung cancer. Exercise capacity was defined as the six-minute walk distance (6MWD; in meters) measured during a six-minute walk test (6MWT; i.e. how far an individual can walk in six minutes on a flat course), or the peak oxygen uptake (i.e. VO₂peak) measured during a maximal incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET).\nThe secondary aims were to determine the effects of exercise training on the force-generating capacity of peripheral muscles, disease-specific global HRQoL, physical functioning component of HRQoL, dyspnoea, fatigue, feelings of anxiety and depression, lung function, level of physical activity, adverse events, performance status, body weight and overall survival in adults with advanced lung cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, and SciELO on 7 July 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared exercise training versus no exercise training in adults with advanced lung cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the studies and selected those for inclusion. We performed meta-analyses for the following outcomes: exercise capacity, disease-specific global HRQoL, physical functioning HRQoL, dyspnoea, fatigue, feelings of anxiety and depression, and lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)). Two studies reported force-generating capacity of peripheral muscles, and we presented the results narratively. Limited data were available for level of physical activity, adverse events, performance status, body weight and overall survival.\nMain results\nWe identified six RCTs, involving 221 participants. The mean age of participants ranged from 59 to 70 years; the sample size ranged from 20 to 111 participants. Overall, we found that the risk of bias in the included studies was high, and the quality of evidence for all outcomes was low.\nPooled data from four studies demonstrated that, on completion of the intervention period, exercise capacity (6MWD) was significantly higher in the intervention group than the control group (mean difference (MD) 63.33 m; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.70 to 122.96). On completion of the intervention period, disease-specific global HRQoL was significantly better in the intervention group compared to the control group (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.51; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.93). There was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in physical functioning HRQoL (SMD 0.11; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.58), dyspnoea (SMD -0.27; 95% CI -0.64 to 0.10), fatigue (SMD 0.03; 95% CI -0.51 to 0.58), feelings of anxiety (MD -1.21 units on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; 95% CI -5.88 to 3.45) and depression (SMD -1.26; 95% CI -4.68 to 2.17), and FEV1 (SMD 0.43; 95% CI -0.11 to 0.97).\nAuthors' conclusions\nExercise training may improve or avoid the decline in exercise capacity and disease-specific global HRQoL for adults with advanced lung cancer. We found no significant effects of exercise training on dyspnoea, fatigue, feelings of anxiety and depression, or lung function. The findings of this review should be viewed with caution because of the heterogeneity between studies, the small sample sizes, and the high risk of bias of included studies. Larger, high-quality RCTs are needed to confirm and expand knowledge on the effects of exercise training in this population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Patients with advanced lung cancer often have many symptoms and accompanying diseases. This, combined with side-effects of cancer treatment, leads patients to become less fit. This is concerning as fitness level is a measure of whole body health, and is critical in a patient's ability to participate in life activities and tolerate difficult treatments. Exercise training has been shown to improve fitness, muscle strength and quality of life in survivors of several types of cancers. However, the effect of exercise training on these outcomes in people with advanced lung cancer is not clear."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7226
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic progressive or relapsing and remitting disease that usually causes weakness and sensory loss. The symptoms are due to autoimmune inflammation of peripheral nerves. CIPD affects about 2 to 3 per 100,000 of the population. More than half of affected people cannot walk unaided when symptoms are at their worst. CIDP usually responds to treatments that reduce inflammation, but there is disagreement about which treatment is most effective.\nObjectives\nTo summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of any treatment for CIDP and to compare the effects of treatments.\nMethods\nWe considered all systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment for any form of CIDP. We reported their primary outcomes, giving priority to change in disability after 12 months.\nTwo overview authors independently identified published systematic reviews for inclusion and collected data. We reported the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. Two other review authors independently checked review selection, data extraction and quality assessments.\nOn 31 October 2016, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (in theCochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus for systematic reviews of CIDP. We supplemented the RCTs in the existing CSRs by searching on the same date for RCTs of any treatment of CIDP (including treatment of fatigue or pain in CIDP), in the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus.\nMain results\nFive CSRs met our inclusion criteria. We identified 23 randomised trials, of which 15 had been included in these CSRs. We were unable to compare treatments as originally planned, because outcomes and outcome intervals differed.\nCorticosteroids\nIt is uncertain whether daily oral prednisone improved impairment compared to no treatment because the quality of the evidence was very low (1 trial, 28 participants). According to moderate-quality evidence (1 trial, 41 participants), six months' treatment with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone did not improve disability more than daily oral prednisolone. Observational studies tell us that prolonged use of corticosteroids sometimes causes serious side-effects.\nPlasma exchange\nAccording to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 59 participants), twice-weekly plasma exchange produced more short-term improvement in disability than sham exchange. In the largest observational study, 3.9% of plasma exchange procedures had complications.\nIntravenous immunoglobulin\nAccording to high-quality evidence (5 trials, 269 participants), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) produced more short-term improvement than placebo. Adverse events were more common with IVIg than placebo (high-quality evidence), but serious adverse events were not (moderate-quality evidence, 3 trials, 315 participants). One trial with 19 participants provided moderate-quality evidence of little or no difference in short-term improvement of impairment with plasma exchange in comparison to IVIg. There was little or no difference in short-term improvement of disability with IVIg in comparison to oral prednisolone (moderate-quality evidence; 1 trial, 29 participants) or intravenous methylprednisolone (high-quality evidence; 1 trial, 45 participants). One unpublished randomised open trial with 35 participants found little or no difference in disability after three months of IVIg compared to oral prednisone; this trial has not yet been included in a CSR. We know from observational studies that serious adverse events related to IVIg do occur.\nOther immunomodulatory treatments\nIt is uncertain whether the addition of azathioprine (2 mg/kg) to prednisone improved impairment in comparison to prednisone alone, as the quality of the evidence is very low (1 trial, 27 participants). Observational studies show that adverse effects truncate treatment in 10% of people.\nAccording to low-quality evidence (1 trial, 60 participants), compared to placebo, methotrexate 15 mg/kg did not allow more participants to reduce corticosteroid or IVIg doses by 20%. Serious adverse events were no more common with methotrexate than with placebo, but observational studies show that methotrexate can cause teratogenicity, abnormal liver function, and pulmonary fibrosis.\nAccording to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 77 participants), interferon beta-1a (IFN beta-1a) in comparison to placebo, did not allow more people to withdraw from IVIg. According to moderate-quality evidence, serious adverse events were no more common with IFN beta-1a than with placebo.\nWe know of no other completed trials of immunosuppressant or immunomodulatory agents for CIDP.\nOther treatments\nWe identified no trials of treatments for fatigue or pain in CIDP.\nAdverse effects\nNot all trials routinely collected adverse event data; when they did, the quality of evidence was variable. Adverse effects in the short, medium, and long term occur with all interventions. We are not able to make reliable comparisons of adverse events between the interventions included in CSRs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe cannot be certain based on available evidence whether daily oral prednisone improves impairment compared to no treatment. However, corticosteroids are commonly used, based on widespread availability, low cost, very low-quality evidence from observational studies, and clinical experience. The weakness of the evidence does not necessarily mean that corticosteroids are ineffective. High-dose monthly oral dexamethasone for six months is probably no more or less effective than daily oral prednisolone. Plasma exchange produces short-term improvement in impairment as determined by neurological examination, and probably produces short-term improvement in disability. IVIg produces more short-term improvement in disability than placebo and more adverse events, although serious side effects are probably no more common than with placebo. There is no clear difference in short-term improvement in impairment with IVIg when compared with intravenous methylprednisolone and probably no improvement when compared with either oral prednisolone or plasma exchange. According to observational studies, adverse events related to difficult venous access, use of citrate, and haemodynamic changes occur in 3% to17% of plasma exchange procedures.\nIt is uncertain whether azathioprine is of benefit as the quality of evidence is very low. Methotrexate may not be of benefit and IFN beta-1a is probably not of benefit.\nWe need further research to identify predictors of response to different treatments and to compare their long-term benefits, safety and cost-effectiveness. There is a need for more randomised trials of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents, routes of administration, and treatments for symptoms of CIDP.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Methods\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched five databases for all systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) until October 2016. We judged that five Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) provided the best evidence and identified 23 randomised trials, of which 16 have so far been included in CSRs. We assessed the quality of their included evidence."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7227
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEndometrial carcinoma is the most common gynaecologic malignancy in the world and develops through preliminary stages of endometrial hyperplasia. Atypical endometrial hyperplasia suggests a significant pre-malignant state with frank progression to endometrial carcinoma, and tends to occur at a young age. Oral progestins have been used as conservative treatment in young women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia, but they are associated with poor tolerability and side effects that may limit their overall efficacy. So it has become increasingly important and necessary to find a safe and effective fertility-sparing treatment with better tolerability and fewer side effects than the options currently available. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) has been used to provide endometrial protection in women with breast cancer who are on adjuvant tamoxifen. The antiproliferative function of levonorgestrel is thought to reduce the risk of endometrial hyperplasia.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of oral and intrauterine progestogens in treating atypical endometrial hyperplasia.\nSearch methods\nIn July 2018 we searched CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL, PsycINFO and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure for relevant trials. Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Specialised Register and Embase were searched in November 2018. We attempted to identify trials from references in published studies. We also searched for ongoing trials in five major clinical trials registries.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of oral and intrauterine progestogens (LNG-IUS) versus each other or placebo in women with a confirmed histological diagnosis of simple or complex endometrial hyperplasia with atypia.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data. The primary outcomes of the review were rate of regression and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes included rate of recurrence and proportion of women undergoing hysterectomy. We have used GRADE methodology to judge the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included one RCT (153 women) comparing the LNG-IUS administering 20 micrograms (μu) levonorgestrel per day versus 10 milligrams of continuous or cyclical oral medroxyprogesterone (MPA) for treating any type of endometrial hyperplasia. Only 19 women in this study were histologically confirmed with atypical complex hyperplasia before treatment. The evidence was of low or very low quality. The included study was at low risk of bias, but the quality of the evidence was very seriously limited by imprecision and indirectness. We did not find any RCTS comparing the LNG-IUS or oral progestogens versus placebo in women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia.\nAmong the 19 women with atypical complex hyperplasia, after six months of treatment there was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in regression rates between the LNG-IUS group and the progesterone group (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 29.73; 1 RCT subgroup, 19 women, very low-quality evidence). The rate of regression was 100% in the LNG-IUS group (n = 6/6) and 77% in the progesterone group (n = 10/13).\nAmong the total study population (N = 153), over the six months' treatment the main adverse effects were nausea and vaginal bleeding. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of nausea (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 153 women, very low-quality evidence). Vaginal bleeding was more common in the LNG-IUS group (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.11 to 7.52; 1 RCT, 153 women, low-quality evidence). Except for nausea and vaginal bleeding, no other adverse effects were reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe did not find any RCTS of women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia, and our findings derive from a subgroup of 19 women in a larger RCT. All six women who used the LNG-IUS system achieved regression of atypical hyperplasia, but there was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions regarding the relative efficacy of LNG-IUS versus oral progesterone (MPA) in this group of women. When assessed in a population of women with any type of endometrial hyperplasia, there was no clear evidence of a difference between LNG-IUS and oral progesterone (MPA) in risk of nausea, but vaginal bleeding was more likely to occur in women using the LNG-IUS. Larger studies are necessary to assess the efficacy and safety of oral and intrauterine progestogens in treating atypical endometrial hyperplasia.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. The included study was at low risk of bias, but the quality of the evidence was very seriously limited by imprecision and indirectness."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7228
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevalence of opiate use among pregnant women can range from 1% to 2% to as high as 21%. Just in the United States alone, among pregnant women with hospital delivery, a fourfold increase in opioid use is reported from 1999 to 2014 (Haight 2018). Heroin crosses the placenta, and pregnant, opiate-dependent women experience a six-fold increase in maternal obstetric complications such as low birth weight, toxaemia, third trimester bleeding, malpresentation, puerperal morbidity, fetal distress and meconium aspiration. Neonatal complications include narcotic withdrawal, postnatal growth deficiency, microcephaly, neuro-behavioural problems, increased neonatal mortality and a 74-fold increase in sudden infant death syndrome. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and last updated in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of any maintenance treatment alone or in combination with a psychosocial intervention compared to no intervention, other pharmacological intervention or psychosocial interventions alone for child health status, neonatal mortality, retaining pregnant women in treatment, and reducing the use of substances.\nSearch methods\nWe updated our searches of the following databases to February 2020: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We also searched two trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials which assessed the efficacy of any pharmacological maintenance treatment for opiate-dependent pregnant women.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe found four trials with 271 pregnant women. Three compared methadone with buprenorphine and one methadone with oral slow-release morphine. Three out of four studies had adequate allocation concealment and were double-blind. The major flaw in the included studies was attrition bias: three out of four had a high dropout rate (30% to 40%), and this was unbalanced between groups.\nMethadone versus buprenorphine:\nThere was probably no evidence of a difference in the dropout rate from treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.20, three studies, 223 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference in the use of primary substances between methadone and buprenorphine (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.68, two studies, 151 participants, low-quality evidence). Birth weight may be higher in the buprenorphine group in the two trials that reported data MD;-530.00 g, 95%CI -662.78 to -397.22 (one study, 19 particpants) and MD: -215.00 g, 95%CI -238.93 to -191.07 (one study, 131 participants) although the results could not be pooled due to very high heterogeneity (very low-quality of evidence). The third study reported that there was no evidence of a difference. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the APGAR score (MD: 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03, two studies,163 participants, low-quality evidence). Many measures were used in the studies to assess neonatal abstinence syndrome. The number of newborns treated for neonatal abstinence syndrome, which is the most critical outcome, may not differ between groups (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to1.63, three studies, 166 participants, low-quality evidence).\nOnly one study which compared methadone with buprenorphine reported side effects. We found there may be no evidence of a difference in the number of mothers with serious adverse events (AEs) (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.83, 175 participants, low-quality evidence) and we found there may be no difference in the numbers of newborns with serious AEs (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.59, 38.49,131 participants, low-quality evidence).\nMethadone versus slow-release morphine:\nThere were no dropouts in either treatment group. Oral slow-release morphine may be superior to methadone for abstinence from heroin use during pregnancy (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.77, one study, 48 participants, low-quality evidence).\nIn the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine, no side effects were reported for the mother. In contrast, one child in the methadone group had central apnoea, and one child in the morphine group had obstructive apnoea (low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nMethadone and buprenorphine may be similar in efficacy and safety for the treatment of opioid-dependent pregnant women and their babies. There is not enough evidence to make conclusions for the comparison between methadone and slow-release morphine. Overall, the body of evidence is too small to make firm conclusions about the equivalence of the treatments compared. There is still a need for randomised controlled trials of adequate sample size comparing different maintenance treatments.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study funding sources\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded two studies, one received a grant from the Mayor of Vienna, and in the fourth study Schering Plough provided an educational grant to the first author to employ personnel required to conduct this study."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7229
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute splenic sequestration crises are a complication of sickle cell disease, with high mortality rates and frequent recurrence in survivors of first attacks. Splenectomy and blood transfusion, with their consequences, are the mainstay of long-term management used in different parts of the world. This is a 2017 update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002, and previously updated, most recently in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether splenectomy (total or partial), to prevent acute splenic sequestration crises in people with sickle cell disease, improved survival and decreased morbidity in people with sickle cell disease, as compared with regular blood transfusions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which comprises of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched clinical trial registries. Additional trials were sought from the reference lists of the trials and reviews identified by the search strategy.\nDate of the most recent search: 14 August 2017.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing splenectomy (total or partial) to prevent recurrence of acute splenic sequestration crises with no treatment or blood transfusions in people with sickle cell disease.\nData collection and analysis\nNo trials of splenectomy for acute splenic sequestration were found.\nMain results\nNo trials of splenectomy for acute splenic sequestration were found.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSplenectomy, if full, will prevent further sequestration and if partial, may reduce the recurrence of acute splenic sequestration crises. However, there is a lack of evidence from trials showing that splenectomy improves survival and decreases morbidity in people with sickle cell disease. There is a need for a well-designed, adequately-powered, randomized controlled trial to assess the benefits and risks of splenectomy compared to transfusion programmes, as a means of improving survival and decreasing mortality from acute splenic sequestration in people with sickle cell disease.\nThere are no trials included in the review and we have not identified any relevant trials up to August 2017. We will continue to run searches to identify any potentially relevant trials; however, we do not plan to update other sections of the review until new trials are published.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In some people with sickle cell disease, red blood cells become trapped and destroyed in the spleen. This damages the spleen, which may become enlarged leading to splenic sequestration crises. These crises consist of abdominal pain, rapid heart rate and other symptoms. Such an attack can be fatal without prompt treatment. All or part of the spleen (splenectomy) is often removed after a person has survived such a crisis to try and prevent another one. This surgery may leave the individual at a higher risk of infection. We looked for trials which compared surgery to blood transfusions."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7230
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOccupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) causes significant functional impairment, disruption of work, and discomfort in the working population. Different preventive measures such as protective gloves, barrier creams and moisturisers can be used, but it is not clear how effective these are. This is an update of a Cochrane review which was previously published in 2010.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of primary preventive interventions and strategies (physical and behavioural) for preventing OIHD in healthy people (who have no hand dermatitis) who work in occupations where the skin is at risk of damage due to contact with water, detergents, chemicals or other irritants, or from wearing gloves.\nSearch methods\nWe updated our searches of the following databases to January 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLlNE, and Embase. We also searched five trials registers and checked the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. We handsearched two sets of conference proceedings.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effectiveness of barrier creams, moisturisers, gloves, or educational interventions compared to no intervention for the primary prevention of OIHD under field conditions.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were signs and symptoms of OIHD developed during the trials, and the frequency of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects.\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs involving 2888 participants without occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) at baseline. Six studies, including 1533 participants, investigated the effects of barrier creams, moisturisers, or both. Three studies, including 1355 participants, assessed the effectiveness of skin protection education on the prevention of OIHD. No studies were eligible that investigated the effects of protective gloves. Among each type of intervention, there was heterogeneity concerning the criteria for assessing signs and symptoms of OIHD, the products, and the occupations. Selection bias, performance bias, and reporting bias were generally unclear across all studies. The risk of detection bias was low in five studies and high in one study. The risk of other biases was low in four studies and high in two studies.\nThe eligible trials involved a variety of participants, including: metal workers exposed to cutting fluids, dye and print factory workers, gut cleaners in swine slaughterhouses, cleaners and kitchen workers, nurse apprentices, hospital employees handling irritants, and hairdressing apprentices. All studies were undertaken at the respective work places. Study duration ranged from four weeks to three years. The participants' ages ranged from 16 to 67 years.\nMeta-analyses for barrier creams, moisturisers, a combination of both barrier creams and moisturisers, or skin protection education showed imprecise effects favouring the intervention. Twenty-nine per cent of participants who applied barrier creams developed signs of OIHD, compared to 33% of the controls, so the risk may be slightly reduced with this measure (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.06; 999 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence). However, this risk reduction may not be clinically important. There may be a clinically important protective effect with the use of moisturisers: in the intervention groups, 13% of participants developed symptoms of OIHD compared to 19% of the controls (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.09; 507 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). Likewise, there may be a clinically important protective effect from using a combination of barrier creams and moisturisers: 8% of participants in the intervention group developed signs of OIHD, compared to 13% of the controls (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.42; 474 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether skin protection education reduces the risk of developing signs of OIHD (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08; 1355 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). Twenty-one per cent of participants who received skin protection education developed signs of OIHD, compared to 28% of the controls.\nNone of the studies addressed the frequency of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects of the products directly. However, in three studies of barrier creams, the reasons for withdrawal from the studies were unrelated to adverse effects. Likewise, in one study of moisturisers plus barrier creams, and in one study of skin protection education, reasons for dropout were unrelated to adverse effects. The remaining studies (one to two in each comparison) reported dropouts without stating how many of them may have been due to adverse reactions to the interventions. We judged the quality of this evidence as moderate, due to the indirectness of the results. The investigated interventions to prevent OIHD probably cause few or no serious adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMoisturisers used alone or in combination with barrier creams may result in a clinically important protective effect, either in the long- or short-term, for the primary prevention of OIHD. Barrier creams alone may have slight protective effect, but this does not appear to be clinically important. The results for all of these comparisons were imprecise, and the low quality of the evidence means that our confidence in the effect estimates is limited. For skin protection education, the results varied substantially across the trials, the effect was imprecise, and the pooled risk reduction was not large enough to be clinically important. The very low quality of the evidence means that we are unsure as to whether skin protection education reduces the risk of developing OIHD. The interventions probably cause few or no serious adverse effects.\nWe conclude that at present there is insufficient evidence to confidently assess the effectiveness of interventions used in the primary prevention of OIHD. This does not necessarily mean that current measures are ineffective. Even though the update of this review included larger studies of reasonable quality, there is still a need for trials which apply standardised measures for the detection of OIHD in order to determine the effectiveness of the different prevention strategies.\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": "Occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) is a skin disease that occurs on the hands of employees in certain jobs. The first signs are red and scaly patches in the finger webs and on the knuckle area of the hands. Itchy blisters, painful cracks, and possibly infection are common, and eventually the skin becomes thickened.\nHand skin irritation can affect employees who regularly come into contact with water, detergents, chemicals, and other irritants, or who wear gloves during their working day. People at particular risk include hairdressers, nurses, cleaners, builders, and people who work in the dye, printing, metal, and food industries. The condition is relatively common and affects about 5 to 20 out of 10,000 full-time workers per year. Preventing OIHD from developing is important because it is difficult to clear once it starts."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7231
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nProgressive lung damage causes most deaths in cystic fibrosis. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (such as ibuprofen) may prevent progressive pulmonary deterioration and morbidity in cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of treatment with oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in cystic fibrosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, hand searches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We contacted manufacturers of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and searched online trials registries.\nLatest search of the Group's Trials Register: 21 November 2018.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials comparing oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, at any dose for at least two months, to placebo in people with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trials for inclusion the review and their potential risk of bias. Two authors independently rated the quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE guidelines.\nMain results\nThe searches identified 17 trials; four are included (287 participants aged five to 39 years; maximum follow-up of four years) and one is currently awaiting classification pending publication of the full trial report and two are ongoing. Three trials compared ibuprofen to placebo (two from the same center with some of the same participants); one trial assessed piroxicam versus placebo.\nThe three ibuprofen trials were deemed to have good or adequate methodological quality, but used various outcomes and summary measures. Reviewers considered measures of lung function, nutritional status, radiological assessment of pulmonary involvement, intravenous antibiotic usage, hospital admissions, survival and adverse effects. Combined data from the two largest ibuprofen trials showed a lower annual rate of decline for lung function, % predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), mean difference (MD) 1.32 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 2.42) (moderate-quality evidence); forced vital capacity (FVC), MD 1.27 (95% CI 0.26 to 2.28) (moderate-quality evidence); forced expiratory flow (FEF25%-75%), MD 1.80 (95% CI 0.15 to 3.45). The post hoc analysis of data from two trials split by age showed a slower rate of annual decline of FEV1 % predicted and FVC in the ibuprofen group in younger children, MD 1.41% (95% CI 0.03 to 2.80) (moderate-quality evidence) and MD 1.32% (95% CI 0.04 to 2.60) (moderate-quality evidence) respectively. Data from four trials demonstrated the proportion of participants with at least one hospitalization may be slightly lower in the ibuprofen group compared to placebo, Peto odds ratio 0.61 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.01) (moderate-quality evidence). In one trial, long-term use of high-dose ibuprofen was associated with reduced intravenous antibiotic usage, improved nutritional and radiological pulmonary status. No major adverse effects were reported, but the power of the trials to identify clinically important differences in the incidence of adverse effects was low.\nWe did not have any concerns with regards to risk of bias for the trial comparing piroxicam to placebo. However, the trial did not report many data in a form that we could analyze in this review. No data were available for the review's primary outcome of lung function; available data for hospital admissions showed no difference between the groups. No analyzable data were available for any other review outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigh-dose ibuprofen can slow the progression of lung disease in people with cystic fibrosis, especially in children, which suggests that strategies to modulate lung inflammation can be beneficial for people with cystic fibrosis.\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 evidence to see if drugs that were not steroids could reduce inflammation in the lungs and stop lung function getting worse in people with cystic fibrosis."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7232
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA pressure injury (PI), also referred to as a 'pressure ulcer', or 'bedsore', is an area of localised tissue damage caused by unrelieved pressure, friction, or shearing on any part of the body. Immobility is a major risk factor and manual repositioning a common prevention strategy. This is an update of a review first published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of repositioning regimens(i.e. repositioning schedules and patient positions) on the prevention of PI in adults regardless of risk in any setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus on 12 February 2019. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of 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\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised trials (c-RCTs), published or unpublished, that assessed the effects of any repositioning schedule or different patient positions and measured PI incidence in adults in any setting.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified five additional trials and one economic substudy in this update, resulting in the inclusion of a total of eight trials involving 3941 participants from acute and long-term care settings and two economic substudies in the review. Six studies reported the proportion of participants developing PI of any stage. Two of the eight trials reported within-trial cost evaluations. Follow-up periods were short (24 hours to 21 days). All studies were at high risk of bias. Funding sources were reported in five trials.\nPrimary outcomes: proportion of new PI of any stage\nRepositioning frequencies: three trials compared different repositioning frequencies\nWe pooled data from three trials (1074 participants) comparing 2-hourly with 4-hourly repositioning frequencies (fixed-effect; I² = 45%; pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.41). It is uncertain whether 2-hourly repositioning compared with 4-hourly repositioning used in conjunction with any support surface increases or decreases the incidence of PI. The certainty of the evidence is very low due to high risk of bias, downgraded twice for risk of bias, and once for imprecision.\nOne of these trials had three arms (967 participants) comparing 2-hourly, 3-hourly, and 4-hourly repositioning regimens on high-density mattresses; data for one comparison was included in the pooled analysis. Another comparison was based on 2-hourly versus 3-hourly repositioning. The RR for PI incidence was 4.06 (95% CI 0.87 to 18.98). The third study comparison was based on 3-hourly versus 4-hourly repositioning (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.92). The certainty of the evidence is low due to risk of bias and imprecision.\nIn one c-RCT, 262 participants in 32 ward clusters were randomised between 2-hourly and 3-hourly repositioning on standard mattresses and 4-hourly and 6-hourly repositioning on viscoelastic mattresses. The RR for PI with 2-hourly repositioning compared with 3-hourly repositioning on standard mattress is imprecise (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.16; very low-certainty evidence). The CI for PI include both a large reduction and no difference for the comparison of 4-hourly and 6-hourly repositioning on viscoelastic foam (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02). The certainty of the evidence is very low, downgraded twice due to high risk of bias, and once for imprecision.\nPositioning regimens: four trials compared different tilt positions\nWe pooled data from two trials (252 participants) that compared a 30° tilt with a 90° tilt (random-effects; I² = 69%). There was no clear difference in the incidence of stage 1 or 2 PI. The effect of tilt is uncertain because the certainty of evidence is very low (pooled RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.97), downgraded due to serious design limitations and very serious imprecision.\nOne trial involving 120 participants compared 30° tilt and 45° tilt with 'usual care' and reported no occurrence of PI events (low certainty evidence). Another trial involving 116 ICU patients compared prone with the usual supine positioning for PI. Reporting was incomplete and this is low certainty evidence.\nSecondary outcomes\nNo studies reported health-related quality of life utility scores, procedural pain, or patient satisfaction.\nCost analysis\nTwo included trials also performed economic analyses.\nA cost-minimisation analysis compared the costs of 3-hourly and 4-hourly repositioning with 2-hourly repositioning schedule amongst nursing home residents. The cost of repositioning was estimated at CAD 11.05 and CAD 16.74 less per resident per day for the 3-hourly or 4-hourly regimen, respectively, compared with the 2-hourly regimen. The estimates of economic benefit were driven mostly by the value of freed nursing time. The analysis assumed that 2-, 3-, or 4-hourly repositioning is associated with a similar incidence of PI, as no difference in incidence was observed.\nA second study compared the nursing time cost of 3-hourly repositioning using a 30° tilt with standard care (6-hourly repositioning with a 90° lateral rotation) amongst nursing home residents. The intervention was reported to be cost-saving compared with standard care (nursing time cost per patient EUR 206.60 versus EUR 253.10, incremental difference EUR −46.50, 95% CI EUR −1.25 to EUR −74.60).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite the addition of five trials, the results of this update are consistent with our earlier review, with the evidence judged to be of low or very low certainty. There remains a lack of robust evaluations of repositioning frequency and positioning for PI prevention and uncertainty about their effectiveness. Since all comparisons were underpowered, there is a high level of uncertainty in the evidence base.\nGiven the limited data from economic evaluations, it remains unclear whether repositioning every three hours using the 30° tilt versus \"usual care\" (90° tilt) or repositioning 3-to-4-hourly versus 2-hourly is less costly relative to nursing time.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Pressure injuries, also called pressure ulcers, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers, and bedsores, are caused by pressure and rubbing on the bony weight-bearing points of the body. A pressure injury is indicated by an area of localised damage to the skin or underlying tissue over a bony prominence. Pressure injuries occur most commonly in the elderly, or those who are immobile.\nRepositioning is one strategy used alongside other strategies to prevent the development of pressure injuries. Repositioning involves moving the person into a different position to redistribute pressure from a particular part of the body. We wanted to know which repositioning regimen was most effective in preventing pressure injuries in adults. We looked at the effect of different repositioning on peoples’ perceived satisfaction, pain, and quality of life. We were also interested in comparing the cost-effectiveness of different repositioning approaches."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7234
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nElevated levels of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein play an important role in the development of atheromas and, therefore, in cardiovascular diseases. Cholesterol biosynthesis follows a circadian rhythm and is principally produced at night (between 12:00 am and 6:00 am). The adjustment of hypolipaemic therapy to biologic rhythms is known as chronotherapy. Chronotherapy is based on the idea that medication can have different effects depending on the hour at which it is taken. Statins are one of the most widely used drugs for the prevention of cardiovascular events. In usual clinical practice, statins are administered once per day without specifying the time when they should be taken. It is unknown whether the timing of statin administration is important for clinical outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo critically evaluate and analyse the evidence available from randomised controlled trials regarding the effects of chronotherapy on the effectiveness and safety of treating hyperlipidaemia with statins.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ProQuest Health & Medical Complete, OpenSIGLE, Web of Science Conference Proceedings, and various other resources including clinical trials registers up to November 2015. We also searched the reference lists of relevant reviews for eligible studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), enrolling people with primary or secondary hyperlipidaemia. To be included, trials must have compared any chronotherapeutic lipid-lowering regimen with statins and any other statin lipid-lowering regimen not based on chronotherapy. We considered any type and dosage of statin as eligible, as long as the control and experimental arms differed only in the timing of the administration of the same statin. Quasi-randomised studies were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We extracted the key data from studies in relation to participants, interventions, and outcomes for safety and efficacy. We calculated odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Using the GRADE approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and we used the GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool to import data from Review Manager to create 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nThis review includes eight RCTs (767 participants analysed in morning and evening arms). The trials used different lipid-lowering regimens with statins (lovastatin: two trials; simvastatin: three trials; fluvastatin: two trials; pravastatin: one trial). All trials compared the effects between morning and evening statin administration. Trial length ranged from four to 14 weeks. We found a high risk of bias in the domain of selective reporting in three trials and in the domain of incomplete outcome data in one trial of the eight trials included. None of the studies included were judged to be at low risk of bias.\nNone of the included RCTs reported data on cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, incidence of cardiovascular events, or deaths from any cause. Pooled results showed no evidence of a difference in total cholesterol (MD 4.33, 95% CI -1.36 to 10.01), 514 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (MD 4.85 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.87 to 10.57, 473 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (MD 0.54, 95% CI -1.08 to 2.17, 514 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence) or triglycerides (MD -8.91, 95% CI -22 to 4.17, 510 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence) between morning and evening statin administration.\nWith regard to safety outcomes, five trials (556 participants) reported adverse events. Pooled analysis found no differences in statins adverse events between morning and evening intake (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.15, 556 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nLimited and low-quality evidence suggested that there were no differences between chronomodulated treatment with statins in people with hyperlipidaemia as compared to conventional treatment with statins, in terms of clinically relevant outcomes. Studies were short term and therefore did not report on our primary outcomes, cardiovascular clinical events or death. The review did not find differences in adverse events associated with statins between both regimens. Taking statins in the evening does not have an effect on the improvement of lipid levels with respect to morning administration. Further high-quality trials with longer-term follow-up are needed to confirm the results of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "No trials assessed CVD clinical events or deaths. Evaluation of the available evidence indicated that there were no differences between evening or morning administration of statins in terms of lipid levels (total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides). Additionally, there was no difference in the rate of adverse events associated with statins between both regimens."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7235
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nElevated blood pressure, or hypertension, is the leading cause of preventable deaths globally. Diets high in sodium (predominantly sodium chloride) and low in potassium contribute to elevated blood pressure. The WHO recommends decreasing mean population sodium intake through effective and safe strategies to reduce hypertension and its associated disease burden. Incorporating low-sodium salt substitutes (LSSS) into population strategies has increasingly been recognised as a possible sodium reduction strategy, particularly in populations where a substantial proportion of overall sodium intake comes from discretionary salt. The LSSS contain lower concentrations of sodium through its displacement with potassium predominantly, or other minerals. Potassium-containing LSSS can potentially simultaneously decrease sodium intake and increase potassium intake. Benefits of LSSS include their potential blood pressure-lowering effect and relatively low cost. However, there are concerns about potential adverse effects of LSSS, such as hyperkalaemia, particularly in people at risk, for example, those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or taking medications that impair potassium excretion.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects and safety of replacing salt with LSSS to reduce sodium intake on cardiovascular health in adults, pregnant women and children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, EBSCOhost), ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) up to 18 August 2021, and screened reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews. No language or publication restrictions were applied.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective analytical cohort studies in participants of any age in the general population, from any setting in any country. This included participants with non-communicable diseases and those taking medications that impair potassium excretion. Studies had to compare any type and method of implementation of LSSS with the use of regular salt, or no active intervention, at an individual, household or community level, for any duration.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles to determine eligibility; and extracted data, assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB tool, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We stratified analyses by adults, children (≤ 18 years) and pregnant women. Primary effectiveness outcomes were change in diastolic and systolic blood pressure (DBP and SBP), hypertension and blood pressure control; cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality were additionally assessed as primary effectiveness outcomes in adults. Primary safety outcomes were change in blood potassium, hyperkalaemia and hypokalaemia.\nMain results\nWe included 26 RCTs, 16 randomising individual participants and 10 randomising clusters (families, households or villages). A total of 34,961 adult participants and 92 children were randomised to either LSSS or regular salt, with the smallest trial including 10 and the largest including 20,995 participants. No studies in pregnant women were identified. Studies included only participants with hypertension (11/26), normal blood pressure (1/26), pre-hypertension (1/26), or participants with and without hypertension (11/26). This was unknown in the remaining studies. The largest study included only participants with an elevated risk of stroke at baseline. Seven studies included adult participants possibly at risk of hyperkalaemia. All 26 trials specifically excluded participants in whom an increased potassium intake is known to be potentially harmful. The majority of trials were conducted in rural or suburban settings, with more than half (14/26) conducted in low- and middle-income countries.\nThe proportion of sodium chloride replacement in the LSSS interventions varied from approximately 3% to 77%. The majority of trials (23/26) investigated LSSS where potassium-containing salts were used to substitute sodium. In most trials, LSSS implementation was discretionary (22/26). Trial duration ranged from two months to nearly five years.\nWe assessed the overall risk of bias as high in six trials and unclear in 12 trials.\nLSSS compared to regular salt in adults: LSSS compared to regular salt probably reduce DBP on average (mean difference (MD) -2.43 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.50 to -1.36; 20,830 participants, 19 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) and SBP (MD -4.76 mmHg, 95% CI -6.01 to -3.50; 21,414 participants, 20 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) slightly.\nOn average, LSSS probably reduce non-fatal stroke (absolute effect (AE) 20 fewer/100,000 person-years, 95% CI -40 to 2; 21,250 participants, 3 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal acute coronary syndrome (AE 150 fewer/100,000 person-years, 95% CI -250 to -30; 20,995 participants, 1 RCT, moderate-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (AE 180 fewer/100,000 person-years, 95% CI -310 to 0; 23,200 participants, 3 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) slightly, and probably increase blood potassium slightly (MD 0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.18; 784 participants, 6 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence), compared to regular salt.\nLSSS may result in little to no difference, on average, in hypertension (AE 17 fewer/1000, 95% CI -58 to 17; 2566 participants, 1 RCT, low-certainty evidence) and hyperkalaemia (AE 4 more/100,000, 95% CI -47 to 121; 22,849 participants, 5 RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence) compared to regular salt. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of LSSS on blood pressure control, various cardiovascular events, stroke mortality, hypokalaemia, and other adverse events (very-low certainty evidence).\nLSSS compared to regular salt in children: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of LSSS on DBP and SBP in children. We found no evidence about the effects of LSSS on hypertension, blood pressure control, blood potassium, hyperkalaemia and hypokalaemia in children.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen compared to regular salt, LSSS probably reduce blood pressure, non-fatal cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality slightly in adults. However, LSSS also probably increase blood potassium slightly in adults. These small effects may be important when LSSS interventions are implemented at the population level. Evidence is limited for adults without elevated blood pressure, and there is a lack of evidence in pregnant women and people in whom an increased potassium intake is known to be potentially harmful, limiting conclusions on the safety of LSSS in the general population. We also cannot draw firm conclusions about effects of non-discretionary LSSS implementations. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of LSSS on blood pressure in children.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are low-sodium salt substitutes (LSSS)?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "LSSS are products with less sodium than regular salt. Amounts of sodium in LSSS are lowered by replacing some of the sodium with potassium or other minerals. LSSS may help lower risks of using regular salt, since eating lots of sodium and not enough potassium contributes to high blood pressure. Globally, high blood pressure is the largest cause of preventable deaths, mainly because it causes stroke, acute coronary syndrome (ACS; where less blood flows to the heart), and kidney problems.\nHowever, LSSS also has potential health risks. Using LSSS may lead to higher than normal blood potassium (hyperkalaemia), which causes problems with the heartbeat speed and rhythm, or can cause the heart to stop. These risks are greater in certain people, for example, those whose kidneys do not work properly to remove potassium."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7236
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDyspepsia is a common condition associated with gastrointestinal (GI) disease. Prokinetics are the treatment of choice for functional dyspepsia (FD). However, the role of prokinetics in FD treatment is still controversial.\nObjectives\nWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy of prokinetics in the treatment of FD. The primary outcome was overall absence of or improvement of symptoms and symptom scores at the end of treatment. We also evaluated quality of life (QoL) and adverse events as secondary outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL, from 1946 until September 2017. RevMan 5.3 was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR) of symptoms persisting or without improved QoL or adverse events, mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) of post-treatment symptoms scores, changes of symptom scores, and QoL, when appropriate with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using a random-effects model. Quality of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that were parallel group RCTs comparing one prokinetic with either placebo or another prokinetic of the same or different class for the treatment of FD. Studies involved adults who presented with dyspepsia symptoms and who had negative or insignificant findings on endoscopy as well as no other organic and metabolic disorders. Studies only including participants with primarily reflux or heartburn symptoms were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility, study quality and performed data extraction.\nMain results\nFrom an initial 1388 citations, we identified 43 studies in 40 papers. Of those, 29 studies with 10,044 participants compared six prokinetics with placebo for the outcome of absence of symptoms or symptom improvement. There was a statistically significant effect of prokinetic treatment in reducing global symptoms of FD (RR of remaining dyspeptic = 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) =7, very low-quality evidence) with considerable heterogeneity; I2 = 91% (P < 0.00001). After removing cisapride from the analysis, the effect of prokinetics in global symptom improvement still persisted, compared to placebo (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.94), but was still based on very low-quality evidence. The result showed persistence of significant improvement in subgroups of studies at unclear or at low risk of bias (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.92), and in subgroups by molecules of cisapride (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93; NNTB = 4), acotiamide (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.98; NNTB = 20) and tegaserod(RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96; NNTB = 14).\nTen studies compared different types of prokinetics with each other and the most commonly used comparator was domperidone, 10 mg three times a day (eight of the 10 studies). There was a significantly better post-treatment symptom score in other prokinetics, compared to domperidone (SMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.03, very low-quality evidence), but no difference in reducing global symptom (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07), and mean difference symptom scores (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.05). We found five studies that assessed quality of life, but there was no benefit in improving quality of life with prokinetic treatment (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.33; participants = 1774). The adverse events in individual prokinetics was not different from placebo (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.25; participants = 3811; studies = 17). However, when we looked at the adverse effects by each prokinetic, there were overall greater adverse effects in the active treatment group with cisapride (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.65; P = 0.03). The most common side effects were diarrhoea, abdominal discomfort and nausea. The funnel plot was asymmetric (Egger's test, P = 0.02) implying reporting bias or other small-study effects may be, in part, driving the benefit of prokinetics compared to placebo in this meta-analysis. The GRADE assessment of the quality of the evidence in each outcome are mostly low or very low due to concerns around risk of bias in study design, unexplained heterogeneity and possible publication bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to low, or very low, quality of evidence, we are unable to say whether prokinetics are effective for the treatment of functional dyspepsia . We are uncertain which of the individual prokinetic drugs is the most effective as well as whether prokinetics can improve quality of life. Apart from cisapride, prokinetics are well-tolerated. Good quality RCTs are needed to verify the efficacy of prokinetics.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We are uncertain whether prokinetics reduce dyspeptic symptoms, compared to no prokinetic treatment. We are also uncertain which prokinetics had the most efficacy in reducing dyspeptic symptoms, improving post-treatment symptom scores, or improving the mean difference of symptom score. We are uncertain whether prokinetic treatment can improve quality of life. We are uncertain whether prokinetics (except cisapride) differ from no prokinetic in producing unpleasant symptoms. The most common unpleasant symptoms from prokinetics were diarrhoea, abdominal discomfort and nausea."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7237
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDifferent bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are used as supportive treatment in men with prostate cancer and bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). SREs such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery and radiotherapy to the bone, and hypercalcemia lead to morbidity, a poor performance status, and impaired quality of life. Efficacy and acceptability of the bone-targeted therapy is therefore of high relevance. Until now recommendations in guidelines on which bone-modifying agents should be used are rare and inconsistent.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of bisphosphonates and RANKL-inhibitors as supportive treatment for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to their safety and efficacy using network meta-analysis.\nSearch methods\nWe identified studies by electronically searching the bibliographic databases Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until 23 March 2020. We searched the Cochrane Library and various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases. We included men with castration-restrictive and castration-sensitive prostate cancer and conducted subgroup analyses according to this criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined proportion of participants with pain response and the adverse events renal impairment and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were SREs in total and each separately (see above), mortality, quality of life, and further adverse events such as grade 3 to 4 adverse events, hypocalcemia, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. We conducted network meta-analysis and generated treatment rankings for all outcomes, except quality of life due to insufficient reporting on this outcome. We compiled ranking plots to compare single outcomes of efficacy against outcomes of acceptability of the bone-modifying agents. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nTwenty-five trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Twenty-one trials could be considered in the quantitative analysis, of which six bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid, risedronate, pamidronate, alendronate, etidronate, or clodronate) were compared with each other, the RANKL-inhibitor denosumab, or no treatment/placebo. By conducting network meta-analysis we were able to compare all of these reported agents directly and/or indirectly within the network for each outcome. In the abstract only the comparisons of zoledronic acid and denosumab against the main comparator (no treatment/placebo) are described for outcomes that were predefined as most relevant and that also appear in the 'Summary of findings' table. Other results, as well as results of subgroup analyses regarding castration status of participants, are displayed in the Results section of the full text.\nTreatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases the proportion of participants with pain response when compared to no treatment/placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 2.32; per 1000 participants 121 more (19 less to 349 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 1013 participants). For this outcome none of the trials reported results for the comparison with denosumab.\nThe adverse event renal impairment probably occurs more often when treated with zoledronic acid compared to no treatment/placebo (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.45; per 1000 participants 78 more (10 more to 180 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 6 trials including 1769 participants). Results for denosumab could not be included for this outcome, since zero events cannot be considered in the network meta-analysis, therefore it does not appear in the ranking.\nTreatment with denosumab results in increased occurrence of the adverse event ONJ (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 11.24; per 1000 participants 30 more (1 more to 125 more); high-certainty evidence; 4 trials, 3006 participants) compared to no treatment/placebo. When comparing zoledronic acid to no treatment/placebo, the confidence intervals include the possibility of benefit or harm, therefore treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases ONJ (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.87; per 1000 participants 11 more (3 less to 47 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 3006 participants).\nCompared to no treatment/placebo, treatment with zoledronic acid (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and denosumab (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) may result in a reduction of the total number of SREs (per 1000 participants 75 fewer (131 fewer to 14 fewer) and 131 fewer (215 fewer to 19 fewer); both low-certainty evidence; 12 trials, 5240 participants).\nTreatment with zoledronic acid and denosumab likely neither reduces nor increases mortality when compared to no treatment/placebo (zoledronic acid RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; per 1000 participants 48 fewer (97 fewer to 5 more); denosumab RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; per 1000 participants 34 fewer (111 fewer to 54 more); both moderate-certainty evidence; 13 trials, 5494 participants).\nDue to insufficient reporting, no network meta-analysis was possible for the outcome quality of life. One study with 1904 participants comparing zoledronic acid and denosumab showed that more zoledronic acid-treated participants than denosumab-treated participants experienced a greater than or equal to five-point decrease in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General total scores over a range of 18 months (average relative difference = 6.8%, range −9.4% to 14.6%) or worsening of cancer-related quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen considering bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment, one has to balance between efficacy and acceptability. Results suggest that Zoledronic acid likely increases both the proportion of participants with pain response, and the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events However, more trials with head-to-head comparisons including all potential agents are needed to draw the whole picture and proof the results of this analysis.\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 metastases in men with prostate cancer may lead to skeletal complications like fractures or pain. Different bone-modifying agents are used as supportive treatment to prevent skeletal complications through formation of new bone mass. Until now no clear recommendations could be given about which agents are the most effective while also causing the fewest adverse events. We used statistical methods to compare all agents with each other based on the available information."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7238
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSurgical wounds (incisions) heal by primary intention when the wound edges are brought together and secured, often with sutures, staples, or clips. Wound dressings applied after wound closure may provide physical support, protection and absorb exudate. There are many different types of wound dressings available and wounds can also be left uncovered (exposed). Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication of wounds and this may be associated with using (or not using) dressings, or different types of dressing.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of wound dressings compared with no wound dressings, and the effects of alternative wound dressings, in preventing SSIs in surgical wounds healing by primary intention.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register (searched 19 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily and Epub Ahead of Print; 1946 to 19 September 2016); Ovid Embase (1974 to 19 September 2016); EBSCO CINAHL Plus (1937 to 19 September 2016).\nThere were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound dressings with wound exposure (no dressing) or alternative wound dressings for the postoperative management of surgical wounds healing by primary intention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction independently.\nMain results\nWe included 29 trials (5718 participants). All studies except one were at an unclear or high risk of bias. Studies were small, reported low numbers of SSI events and were often not clearly reported. There were 16 trials that included people with wounds resulting from surgical procedures with a 'clean' classification, five trials that included people undergoing what was considered 'clean/contaminated' surgery, with the remaining studies including people undergoing a variety of surgical procedures with different contamination classifications. Four trials compared wound dressings with no wound dressing (wound exposure); the remaining 25 studies compared alternative dressing types, with the majority comparing a basic wound contact dressing with film dressings, silver dressings or hydrocolloid dressings. The review contains 11 comparisons in total.\nPrimary outcome: SSI\nIt is uncertain whether wound exposure or any dressing reduces or increases the risk of SSI compared with alternative options investigated: we assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for most comparisons (and low for others), with downgrading (according to GRADE criteria) largely due to risk of bias and imprecision. We summarise the results of comparisons with meta-analysed data below:\n- film dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following clean surgery (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.55), very low certainty evidence downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.\n- hydrocolloid dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following clean surgery (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.78), very low certainty evidence downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.\n- hydrocolloid dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following potentially contaminated surgery (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.51), very low certainty evidence downgraded twice for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.\n- silver-containing dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following clean surgery (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.62), very low certainty evidence downgraded once for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.\n- silver-containing dressings compared with basic wound contact dressings following potentially contaminated surgery (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.37), very low certainty evidence downgraded twice for risk of bias and twice for imprecision.\nSecondary outcomes\nThere was limited and low or very low certainty evidence on secondary outcomes such as scarring, acceptability of dressing and ease of removal, and uncertainty whether wound dressings influenced these outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is uncertain whether covering surgical wounds healing by primary intention with wound dressings reduces the risk of SSI, or whether any particular wound dressing is more effective than others in reducing the risk of SSI, improving scarring, reducing pain, improving acceptability to patients, or is easier to remove. Most studies in this review were small and at a high or unclear risk of bias. Based on the current evidence, decision makers may wish to base decisions about how to dress a wound following surgery on dressing costs as well as patient preference.\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": "Millions of surgical procedures are conducted globally each year. The majority of procedures result in wounds in which the edges are brought together to heal using stitches, staples, clips or glue; this is called 'healing by primary intention'. Afterwards, wounds are often covered with a dressing that acts as a barrier between it and the outside environment. One possible advantage of a dressing may be to protect the wound from infection (surgical site infection). Many different dressing types are available for use on surgical wounds. However, it is not clear whether one type of dressing is better than any other in preventing surgical site infection, or, indeed, whether it is better not to use a dressing at all."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7239
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAgeing populations globally have contributed to increasing numbers of people living with frailty, which has significant implications for use of health and care services and costs. The British Geriatrics Society defines frailty as \"a distinctive health state related to the ageing process in which multiple body systems gradually lose their inbuilt reserves\". This leads to an increased susceptibility to adverse outcomes, such as reduced physical function, poorer quality of life, hospital admissions, and mortality. Case management interventions delivered in community settings are led by a health or social care professional, supported by a multidisciplinary team, and focus on the planning, provision, and co-ordination of care to meet the needs of the individual. Case management is one model of integrated care that has gained traction with policymakers to improve outcomes for populations at high risk of decline in health and well-being. These populations include older people living with frailty, who commonly have complex healthcare and social care needs but can experience poorly co-ordinated care due to fragmented care systems.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of case management for integrated care of older people living with frailty compared with usual care.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Health Systems Evidence, and PDQ Evidence and databases from inception to 23 September 2022. We also searched clinical registries and relevant grey literature databases, checked references of included trials and relevant systematic reviews, conducted citation searching of included trials, and contacted topic experts.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared case management with standard care in community-dwelling people aged 65 years and older living with frailty.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 20 trials (11,860 participants), all of which took place in high-income countries. Case management interventions in the included trials varied in terms of organisation, delivery, setting, and care providers involved. Most trials included a variety of healthcare and social care professionals, including nurse practitioners, allied healthcare professionals, social workers, geriatricians, physicians, psychologists, and clinical pharmacists. In nine trials, the case management intervention was delivered by nurses only. Follow-up ranged from three to 36 months. We judged most trials at unclear risk of selection and performance bias; this consideration, together with indirectness, justified downgrading the certainty of the evidence to low or moderate.\nCase management compared to standard care may result in little or no difference in the following outcomes.\n• Mortality at 12 months' follow-up (7.0% in the intervention group versus 7.5% in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.15; I2 = 11%; 14 trials, 9924 participants; low-certainty evidence)\n• Change in place of residence to a nursing home at 12 months' follow-up (9.9% in the intervention group versus 13.4% in the control group; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.01; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 1108 participants; low-certainty evidence)\n• Quality of life at three to 24 months' follow-up (results not pooled; mean differences (MDs) ranged from −6.32 points (95% CI −11.04 to −1.59) to 6.1 points (95% CI −3.92 to 16.12) when reported; 11 trials, 9284 participants; low-certainty evidence)\n• Serious adverse effects at 12 to 24 months' follow-up (results not pooled; 2 trials, 592 participants; low-certainty evidence)\n• Change in physical function at three to 24 months' follow-up (results not pooled; MDs ranged from −0.12 points (95% CI −0.93 to 0.68) to 3.4 points (95% CI −2.35 to 9.15) when reported; 16 trials, 10,652 participants; low-certainty evidence)\nCase management compared to standard care probably results in little or no difference in the following outcomes.\n• Healthcare utilisation in terms of hospital admission at 12 months' follow-up (32.7% in the intervention group versus 36.0% in the control group; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05; I2 = 43%; 6 trials, 2424 participants; moderate-certainty evidence)\n• Change in costs at six to 36 months' follow-up (results not pooled; 14 trials, 8486 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), which usually included healthcare service costs, intervention costs, and other costs such as informal care.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found uncertain evidence regarding whether case management for integrated care of older people with frailty in community settings, compared to standard care, improved patient and service outcomes or reduced costs. There is a need for further research to develop a clear taxonomy of intervention components, to determine the active ingredients that work in case management interventions, and identify how such interventions benefit some people and not others.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": ""
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7240
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAntibiotic resistance is a worldwide health threat. Interventions that reduce antibiotic prescribing by clinicians are expected to reduce antibiotic resistance. Disparate interventions to change antibiotic prescribing behaviour for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) have been trialled and meta-analysed, but not yet synthesised in an overview. This overview synthesises evidence from systematic reviews, rather than individual trials.\nObjectives\nTo systematically review the existing evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of interventions aimed at influencing clinician antibiotic prescribing behaviour for ARIs in primary care.\nMethods\nWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Science Citation Index to June 2016. We also searched the reference lists of all included reviews. We ran a pre-publication search in May 2017 and placed additional studies in 'awaiting classification'.\nWe included both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any clinician-focussed intervention on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in primary care. Two overview authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using the ROBIS tool, with disagreements reached by consensus or by discussion with a third overview author. We used the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence in included reviews. The results are presented as a narrative overview.\nMain results\nWe included eight reviews in this overview: five Cochrane Reviews (33 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (11 included trials). Three reviews (all Cochrane Reviews) scored low risk across all the ROBIS domains in Phase 2 and low risk of bias overall. The remaining five reviews scored high risk on Domain 4 of Phase 2 because the 'Risk of bias' assessment had not been specifically considered and discussed in the review Results and Conclusions. The trials included in the reviews varied in both size and risk of bias. Interventions were compared to usual care.\nModerate-quality evidence indicated that C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92, 3284 participants, 6 trials), shared decision making (odds ratio (OR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.75, 3274 participants, 3 trials; RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.84, 4623 participants, 2 trials; risk difference -18.44, 95% CI -27.24 to -9.65, 481,807 participants, 4 trials), and procalcitonin-guided management (adjusted OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.14, 1008 participants, 2 trials) probably reduce antibiotic prescribing in general practice. We found moderate-quality evidence that procalcitonin-guided management probably reduces antibiotic prescribing in emergency departments (adjusted OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43, 2605 participants, 7 trials). The overall effect of these interventions was small (few achieving greater than 50% reduction in antibiotic prescribing, most about a quarter or less), but likely to be clinically important.\nCompared to usual care, shared decision making probably makes little or no difference to reconsultation for the same illness (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, 1860 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence), and may make little or no difference to patient satisfaction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, 1110 participants, 2 trials, low-quality evidence). Similarly, CRP testing probably has little or no effect on patient satisfaction (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08, 689 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence) or reconsultation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.27, 5132 participants, 4 trials, moderate-quality evidence). Procalcitonin-guided management probably results in little or no difference in treatment failure in general practice compared to normal care (adjusted OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.24, 1008 participants, 2 trials, moderate-quality evidence), however it probably reduces treatment failure in the emergency department compared to usual care (adjusted OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95, 2605 participants, 7 trials, moderate-quality evidence).\nThe quality of evidence for interventions focused on clinician educational materials and decision support in reducing antibiotic prescribing in general practice was either low or very low (no pooled result reported) and trial results were highly heterogeneous, therefore we were unable draw conclusions about the effects of these interventions. The use of rapid viral diagnostics in emergency departments may have little or no effect on antibiotic prescribing (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.22, 891 participants, 3 trials, low-quality evidence) and may result in little to no difference in reconsultation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25, 200 participants, 1 trial, low-quality evidence).\nNone of the trials in the included reviews reported on management costs for the treatment of an ARI or any associated complications.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found evidence that CRP testing, shared decision making, and procalcitonin-guided management reduce antibiotic prescribing for patients with ARIs in primary care. These interventions may therefore reduce overall antibiotic consumption and consequently antibiotic resistance. There do not appear to be negative effects of these interventions on the outcomes of patient satisfaction and reconsultation, although there was limited measurement of these outcomes in the trials. This should be rectified in future trials.\nWe could gather no information about the costs of management, and this along with the paucity of measurements meant that it was difficult to weigh the benefits and costs of implementing these interventions in practice.\nMost of this research was undertaken in high-income countries, and it may not generalise to other settings. The quality of evidence for the interventions of educational materials and tools for patients and clinicians was either low or very low, which prevented us from drawing any conclusions. High-quality trials are needed to further investigate these interventions.\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": "It is important that antibiotics are used for illnesses where they can make a difference to patients’ symptoms and recovery and that they are available for those infections that are serious and can lead to disability or death. Antibiotics may make very little or no difference for patients who have ear, nose, throat, or chest infections that are caused by a virus (e.g. a cold, flu, or sore throat). Doctors can prescribe antibiotics too readily for patients with these symptoms. Strategies to change doctors’ antibiotic prescribing habits have been developed to reduce the number of antibiotics given to patients with these symptoms. Several types of strategies exist, and it is important to bring together all the information on how these work."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7241
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSevere acute pancreatitis is associated with high rates of mortality and life-threatening complications. Continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) has been used in some centers to reduce mortality and avoid local or systemic complications; however, its efficacy and safety are uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of CVVH in patients suffering from severe acute pancreatitis; to compare the effects of different CVVH techniques; and to evaluate the optimal time for delivery of CVVH.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library (2019, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to 13 September 2019), Embase (1974 to 13 September 2019), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1982 to 13 September 2019).\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CVVH versus no CVVH in participants with severe acute pancreatitis. We also included RCTs that compared different types of CVVH and different schedules for CVVH in participants with severe acute pancreatitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs, involving a total of 219 adults with severe acute pancreatitis with various etiologies, including alcoholic abuse, biliary disease, high-fat diet, hyperlipidemia, etc. All of the participants had single or multiple organ failure. All of the RCTs were single-center studies conducted in China. The mean age of participants was 47.4 years. The mean proportion of females was 42.0%. All RCTs were at high risk of bias.\nCVVH versus no CVVH\nWe included two RCTs in which 189 participants with severe acute pancreatitis were randomized to undergo CVVH (97 participants) or no CVVH (92 participants). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CVVH on in-hospital mortality (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.40; 2 studies, 189 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared with no CVVH. The evidence suggests that CVVH may reduce length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) (MD -8.80 days, 95% CI -10.24 to -7.36 days; 1 study, 125 participants; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -26.40 days, 95% CI -30.17 to -22.63 days; 1 study, 125 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and total hospital cost (MD -2800.00 dollars, 95% CI -3881.74 to -1718.26 dollars; 1 study, 125 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared with no CVVH but the evidence is very uncertain. Adverse events and quality of life were not reported in the studies.\nOne type ofCVVH versus a different type of CVVH\nWe included one RCT in which 30 participants with severe acute pancreatitis were randomized to undergo high-volume CVVH (15 participants) or standard CVVH (15 participants). High-volume CVVH may result in little to no difference in in-hospital mortality compared with standard CVVH (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.07; 1 study, 30 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-volume CVVH on adverse events compared with standard CVVH (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.20; 1 study, 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, total hospital cost, and quality of life were not reported in the study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe certainty of the current evidence is very low or low. For both comparisons addressed in this review, data are sparse. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CVVH on mortality in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Very low-certainty evidence suggests CVVH may reduce length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and total hospital cost but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is also very uncertain whether high-volume CVVH is superior, equivalent or inferior to standard CVVH in patients with severe acute pancreatitis.\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 continuous venous blood filtration reduce the number of deaths in people with severe acute pancreatitis?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7242
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe inability to have children affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to half of the infertility cases with between 25% to 87% of male subfertility considered to be due to the effect of oxidative stress. Oral supplementation with antioxidants is thought to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments, however most antioxidants are uncontrolled by regulation and the evidence for their effectiveness is uncertain. We compared the benefits and risks of different antioxidants used for male subfertility.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of supplementary oral antioxidants in subfertile men.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, and two trial registers were searched on 15 February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with experts in the field to identify additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, among subfertile men of a couple attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded studies comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and studies that included men with idiopathic infertility and normal semen parameters or fertile men attending a fertility clinic because of female partner infertility.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth. Clinical pregnancy, adverse events and sperm parameters were secondary outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 90 studies with a total population of 10,303 subfertile men, aged between 18 and 65 years, part of a couple who had been referred to a fertility clinic and some of whom were undergoing medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Investigators compared and combined 20 different oral antioxidants. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' certainty: the main limitation was that out of the 67 included studies in the meta-analysis only 20 studies reported clinical pregnancy, and of those 12 reported on live birth. The evidence is current up to February 2021.\nLive birth: antioxidants may lead to increased live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.91, P = 0.02, 12 RCTs, 1283 men, I2 = 44%, very low-certainty evidence). Results in the studies contributing to the analysis of live birth rate suggest that if the baseline chance of live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 16%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 17% and 27%. However, this result was based on only 246 live births from 1283 couples in 12 small or medium-sized studies. When studies at high risk of bias were removed from the analysis, there was no evidence of increased live birth (Peto OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.75, 827 men, 8 RCTs, P = 0.27, I2 = 32%).\nClinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may lead to increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.47, P < 0.00001, 20 RCTs, 1706 men, I2 = 3%, low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo or no treatment. This suggests that, in the studies contributing to the analysis of clinical pregnancy, if the baseline chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 15%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 20% and 30%. This result was based on 327 clinical pregnancies from 1706 couples in 20 small studies.\nAdverse events\nMiscarriage: only six studies reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. No evidence of a difference in miscarriage rate was found between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment group (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.83, P = 0.27, 6 RCTs, 664 men, I2 = 35%, very low-certainty evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile couples, with male factor infertility, with an expected miscarriage rate of 5%, the risk of miscarriage following the use of an antioxidant would be between 4% and 13%.\nGastrointestinal: antioxidants may lead to an increase in mild gastrointestinal discomfort when compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.99, P = 0.002, 16 RCTs, 1355 men, I2 = 40%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of gastrointestinal discomfort following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 2%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 2% and 7%. However, this result was based on a low event rate of 46 out of 1355 men in 16 small or medium-sized studies, and the certainty of the evidence was rated low and heterogeneity was high.\nWe were unable to draw conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as insufficient studies compared the same interventions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn this review, there is very low-certainty evidence from 12 small or medium-sized randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low-certainty evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, however antioxidants may give more mild gastrointestinal discomfort, based on very low-certainty evidence. Subfertile couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive based on serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods of randomisation, failure to report on the clinical outcomes live birth rate and clinical pregnancy, often unclear or even high attrition, and also imprecision due to often low event rates and small overall sample sizes. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials studying infertile men and reporting on pregnancy and live births are still required to clarify the exact role of antioxidants.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Do supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile men?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7243
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPublished audits have demonstrated that corneal abrasions are a common presenting eye complaint. Eye patches are often recommended for treating corneal abrasions despite the lack of evidence for their use. This systematic review was conducted to determine the effects of the eye patch when used to treat corneal abrasions.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to assess the effects of patching for corneal abrasion on healing and pain relief.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to May 2016), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to May 2016), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenGrey) (January 1995 to May 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 9 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of included studies, unpublished 'grey' literature and conference proceedings and contacted pharmaceutical companies for details of unpublished trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared patching the eye with no patching to treat simple corneal abrasions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Investigators were contacted for further information regarding the quality of trials. The primary outcome was healing at 24, 48 and 72 hours while secondary outcomes included measures of pain, quality of life and adverse effects. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 12 trials which randomised a total of 1080 participants in the review. Four trials were conducted in the United Kingdom, another four in the United States of America, two in Canada, one in Brazil and one in Switzerland. Seven trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains and one trial was judged to be low risk of bias in all domains. The rest were a combination of low risk or unclear.\nPeople receiving a patch may be less likely to have a healed corneal abrasion after 24 hours compared to those not receiving a patch (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.00, 7 trials, 531 participants, low certainty evidence). Similar numbers of people in the patch and no-patch groups were healed by 48 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02, 6 trials, 497 participants, moderate certainty evidence) and 72 hours (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05, 4 trials, 430 participants, moderate certainty evidence). Participants receiving a patch took slightly longer to heal but the difference was small and probably unimportant (mean difference (MD) 0.14 days longer, 95% CI 0 to 0.27 days longer, 6 trials, 642 participants, moderate certainty evidence).\nTen trials reported pain scores. Most studies reported pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS). It was not possible to pool the data because it was skewed. In general, similar pain ratings were seen between patch and no-patch groups. Data from two trials reporting presence or absence of pain at 24 hours was inconclusive. There was a higher risk of reported pain in the patch group but wide confidence intervals compatible with higher or lower risk of pain (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.65, 2 trials, 193 participants, low certainty evidence). Five trials compared analgesic use between the patch and no-patch groups. Data from three of these trials could be combined and suggested similar analgesic use in the patch and no-patch groups but with some uncertainty (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.32, 256 participants, low certainty evidence). Frequently reported symptoms included photophobia, lacrimation, foreign body sensation and blurred vision but there was little evidence to suggest any difference in these symptoms in people with or without a patch.\nActivities of daily living (ADL) were assessed in one study involving children. There was little difference in ADL with the exception of walking which was reported to be more difficult with a patch on: VAS 1.7 cm (SD 2.1) versus 0.3 cm (SD 0.7).\nComplication rates were low across studies and there is uncertainty about the relative effects of patching or not patching with respect to these (RR 3.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 12.05, 8 trials, 660 participants, low certainty evidence). Three trials reporting rates of compliance to treatment found that 22% of participants did not have their eye patches during follow-up. No-patch groups generally received more adjuvant treatment with antibiotics or cycloplegics, or both, than the patch group. There were limited data on the effect of patching on abrasions greater than 10mm2 in size.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTrials included in this review suggest that treating simple corneal abrasions with a patch may not improve healing or reduce pain. It must be noted that, in these trials, participants who did not receive a patch were more likely to receive additional treatment, for example with antibiotics. Overall we judged the certainty of evidence to be moderate to low. Further research should focus on designing and implementing better quality trials and examining the effectiveness of patching for large abrasions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Patching probably does not speed up healing and may not have an important effect on pain relief. None of the studies provided information on the effect of patching on larger abrasions."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7244
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn late 2019, the first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were reported in Wuhan, China, followed by a worldwide spread. Numerous countries have implemented control measures related to international travel, including border closures, travel restrictions, screening at borders, and quarantine of travellers.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of international travel-related control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic on infectious disease transmission and screening-related outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19-specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO Global Database on COVID-19 Research to 13 November 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of travel-related control measures affecting human travel across international borders during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the original review, we also considered evidence on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). In this version we decided to focus on COVID-19 evidence only. Primary outcome categories were (i) cases avoided, (ii) cases detected, and (iii) a shift in epidemic development. Secondary outcomes were other infectious disease transmission outcomes, healthcare utilisation, resource requirements and adverse effects if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and subsequently full texts. For studies included in the analysis, one review author extracted data and appraised the study. At least one additional review author checked for correctness of data. To assess the risk of bias and quality of included studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for observational studies concerned with screening, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. One review author assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE, and several review authors discussed these GRADE judgements.\nMain results\nOverall, we included 62 unique studies in the analysis; 49 were modelling studies and 13 were observational studies. Studies covered a variety of settings and levels of community transmission.\nMost studies compared travel-related control measures against a counterfactual scenario in which the measure was not implemented. However, some modelling studies described additional comparator scenarios, such as different levels of stringency of the measures (including relaxation of restrictions), or a combination of measures.\nConcerns with the quality of modelling studies related to potentially inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters, and an inadequate assessment of model uncertainty. Concerns with risk of bias in observational studies related to the selection of travellers and the reference test, and unclear reporting of certain methodological aspects.\nBelow we outline the results for each intervention category by illustrating the findings from selected outcomes.\nTravel restrictions reducing or stopping cross-border travel (31 modelling studies)\nThe studies assessed cases avoided and shift in epidemic development. We found very low-certainty evidence for a reduction in COVID-19 cases in the community (13 studies) and cases exported or imported (9 studies). Most studies reported positive effects, with effect sizes varying widely; only a few studies showed no effect.\nThere was very low-certainty evidence that cross-border travel controls can slow the spread of COVID-19. Most studies predicted positive effects, however, results from individual studies varied from a delay of less than one day to a delay of 85 days; very few studies predicted no effect of the measure.\nScreening at borders (13 modelling studies; 13 observational studies)\nScreening measures covered symptom/exposure-based screening or test-based screening (commonly specifying polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing), or both, before departure or upon or within a few days of arrival. Studies assessed cases avoided, shift in epidemic development and cases detected. Studies generally predicted or observed some benefit from screening at borders, however these varied widely.\nFor symptom/exposure-based screening, one modelling study reported that global implementation of screening measures would reduce the number of cases exported per day from another country by 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 72% to 95%) (moderate-certainty evidence). Four modelling studies predicted delays in epidemic development, although there was wide variation in the results between the studies (very low-certainty evidence). Four modelling studies predicted that the proportion of cases detected would range from 1% to 53% (very low-certainty evidence). Nine observational studies observed the detected proportion to range from 0% to 100% (very low-certainty evidence), although all but one study observed this proportion to be less than 54%.\nFor test-based screening, one modelling study provided very low-certainty evidence for the number of cases avoided. It reported that testing travellers reduced imported or exported cases as well as secondary cases. Five observational studies observed that the proportion of cases detected varied from 58% to 90% (very low-certainty evidence).\nQuarantine (12 modelling studies)\nThe studies assessed cases avoided, shift in epidemic development and cases detected. All studies suggested some benefit of quarantine, however the magnitude of the effect ranged from small to large across the different outcomes (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Three modelling studies predicted that the reduction in the number of cases in the community ranged from 450 to over 64,000 fewer cases (very low-certainty evidence). The variation in effect was possibly related to the duration of quarantine and compliance.\nQuarantine and screening at borders (7 modelling studies; 4 observational studies)\nThe studies assessed shift in epidemic development and cases detected. Most studies predicted positive effects for the combined measures with varying magnitudes (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Four observational studies observed that the proportion of cases detected for quarantine and screening at borders ranged from 68% to 92% (low-certainty evidence). The variation may depend on how the measures were combined, including the length of the quarantine period and days when the test was conducted in quarantine.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWith much of the evidence derived from modelling studies, notably for travel restrictions reducing or stopping cross-border travel and quarantine of travellers, there is a lack of 'real-world' evidence. The certainty of the evidence for most travel-related control measures and outcomes is very low and the true effects are likely to be substantially different from those reported here. Broadly, travel restrictions may limit the spread of disease across national borders. Symptom/exposure-based screening measures at borders on their own are likely not effective; PCR testing at borders as a screening measure likely detects more cases than symptom/exposure-based screening at borders, although if performed only upon arrival this will likely also miss a meaningful proportion of cases. Quarantine, based on a sufficiently long quarantine period and high compliance is likely to largely avoid further transmission from travellers. Combining quarantine with PCR testing at borders will likely improve effectiveness. Many studies suggest that effects depend on factors, such as levels of community transmission, travel volumes and duration, other public health measures in place, and the exact specification and timing of the measure. Future research should be better reported, employ a range of designs beyond modelling and assess potential benefits and harms of the travel-related control measures from a societal perspective.\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 62 studies. Most (49 studies) were modelling studies; only 13 used real-life data (observational studies). Studies took place across the world and at different times during the pandemic. Levels of COVID-19 within countries varied.\nMost studies compared current travel-related control measures with no travel-related controls. However, some modelling studies also compared current measures against possible measures, for example, to see what might happen if controls were more or less relaxed or were combined with other measures."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7245
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHypertension is considered to be a serious health problem worldwide. Controlling and lowering blood pressure are of significant benefit to people with hypertension because hypertension is a risk factor for stroke, heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. Roselle, the tropical plant Hibiscus sabdariffa, also commonly called sour tea or red tea, has been used as both a thirst-quenching drink and for medicinal purposes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of Roselle on blood pressure in people with primary hypertension.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases and trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCTs): the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (to 6 August 2021), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 August 2021), Embase Ovid (1974 to 5 August 2021), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (to 6 August 2021), Web of Science Clarivate (to 7 August 2021), Food Science and Technology Abstracts Clarivate (to 7 August 2021), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 6 August 2021), and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (to 6 August 2021). We searched Google Scholar and OpenSIGLE. We also handsearched local and regional Chinese databases: CBM, CMCC, TCMLARS, CNKI, CMAC, and the Index to Chinese Periodical Literature (to 14 September 2020), as well as Thai databases (ThaiJO, CUIR, TDC, CMU e-Theses, TCTR) (to 3 October 2020). There were no language or publication date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought RCTs evaluating the use of any forms of Roselle with placebo or no treatment in adults with hypertension. Our primary outcome was change in trough and/or peak systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP). Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to adverse effects, change in pulse pressure, and change in heart rate.\nData collection and analysis\nAll search results were managed using Covidence and re-checked for the number of records, inclusion and exclusion of studies with Mendeley reference management software. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors worked independently in parallel for screening (titles and abstracts, and full reports), data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and assessment of the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consultation with the third review author if necessary. We presented mean difference (MD) of change in SBP and DBP with their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).\nMain results\nFor this update, only one RCT with a parallel-group design involving 60 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus fulfilled the inclusion criteria. This study investigated the effect of Roselle extract capsules (total dose of 5600 mg) compared with placebo (lactose) at eight weeks. The study was at low risk of selection bias, performance bias, and detection bias. Conversely, it was at high risk of attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias (baseline imbalance).\nWe have very little confidence in the effect estimate of Roselle on change-from-baseline in both SBP and DBP between the two groups. The MD of change in SBP was 1.65, 95% CI −7.89 to 11.19 mmHg, 52 participants, very low-certainty evidence. The MD of change in DBP was 4.60, 95% CI −1.38 to 10.58 mmHg, 52 participants, very low-certainty evidence. Our secondary outcomes of withdrawals due to adverse effects, change in pulse pressure, and change in heart rate were not reported. Due to the limited available data, no secondary analyses were performed (subgroup and sensitivity analysis).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence is currently insufficient to determine the effectiveness of Roselle compared to placebo for controlling or lowering blood pressure in people with hypertension. The certainty of evidence was very low due to methodological limitations, imprecision, and indirectness. There is a need for rigorous RCTs that address the review question.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to know if red tea (Roselle) is a safe and effective treatment for lowering blood pressure in adults with high blood pressure when compared to placebo (dummy treatment) or no treatment. Roselle contains substances known as anthocyanins which have been shown to have lowered blood pressure in studies carried out in animals and humans."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7246
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVenous thromboembolism (VTE), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. Some women are at increased risk of VTE during pregnancy and the early postnatal period (e.g. caesarean section, family history of VTE, or thrombophilia), and so prophylaxis may be considered. As some methods of prophylaxis carry risks of adverse effects, and risk of VTE is often low, benefits of thromboprophylaxis may be outweighed by harms.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the early postnatal period on the risk of venous thromboembolic disease and adverse effects in women at increased risk of VTE.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (18 October 2019). In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for unpublished, planned and ongoing trial reports (18 October 2019).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials comparing one method of thromboprophylaxis with placebo or no treatment, or two (or more) methods of thromboprophylaxis.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and judged certainty of evidence for selected critical outcomes (using GRADE). We conducted fixed-effect meta-analysis and reported data (all dichotomous) as summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nTwenty-nine trials (involving 3839 women), overall at moderate to high risk of bias were included. Trials were conducted across the antenatal, peripartum and postnatal periods, with most in high-income countries. Interventions included types and regimens of heparin (low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH)), hydroxyethyl starch (HES), and compression stockings or devices. Data were limited due to a small number of trials in comparisons and/or few or no events reported. All critical outcomes (assessed for comparisons of heparin versus no treatment/placebo, and LMWH versus UFH) were considered to have very low-certainty evidence, downgraded mainly for study limitations and imprecise effect estimates. Maternal death was not reported in most studies.\nAntenatal (± postnatal) prophylaxis\nFor the primary outcomes symptomatic thromboembolic events pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and the critical outcome of adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment, the evidence was very uncertain.\nSymptomatic thromboembolic events:\n- heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.08 to 1.98; 4 trials, 476 women; very low-certainty evidence);\n- LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.49; 4 trials, 404 women; very low-certainty evidence);\nSymptomatic PE:\n- heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.02 to 7.14; 3 trials, 187 women; very low-certainty evidence);\n- LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 287 women);\nSymptomatic DVT:\n- heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.10; 4 trials, 227 women; very low-certainty evidence);\n- LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 287 women);\nAdverse effects sufficient to stop treatment:\n- heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.05 to 5.31; 1 trial, 139 women; very low-certainty evidence);\n- LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54; 2 trials, 226 women; very low-certainty evidence).\nPeripartum/postnatal prophylaxis\nVaginal or caesarean birth\nWhen UFH and no treatment were compared, the effects on symptomatic thromboembolic events (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.36; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence), symptomatic PE (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.01 to 3.34; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence), and symptomatic DVT (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.03 to 2.55; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence) were very uncertain. Maternal death and adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment were not reported.\nCaesarean birth\nSymptomatic thromboembolic events:\n- heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.39 to 4.27; 4 trials, 840 women; very low-certainty evidence);\n- LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 3 trials, 217 women; very low-certainty evidence);\nSymptomatic PE:\n- heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.25 to 4.87; 4 trials, 840 women; very low-certainty evidence);\n- LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 217 women);\nSymptomatic DVT:\n- heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.24 to 6.94; 5 trials, 1140 women; very low-certainty evidence); LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 3 trials, 217 women; very low-certainty evidence);\nMaternal death:\n- heparin versus placebo (no events, 1 trial, 300 women);\nAdverse effects sufficient to stop treatment:\n- heparin versus placebo (no events; 1 trial, 140 women).\nPostnatal prophylaxis\nNo events were reported for LMWH versus no treatment/placebo for: symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic PE and symptomatic DVT (all 2 trials, 58 women), or maternal death (1 trial, 24 women). Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment were not reported.\nWe were unable to conduct subgroup analyses due to lack of data.\nSensitivity analysis including the nine studies at low risk of bias did not impact overall findings.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence is very uncertain about benefits and harms of VTE thromboprophylaxis in women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period at increased risk of VTE. Further high-quality very large-scale randomised trials are needed to determine effects of currently used treatments in women with different VTE risk factors. As sufficiently large definitive trials are unlikely to be funded, secondary data analyses based on high-quality registry data are important.\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": "This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014. We searched for new evidence in October 2019. Twenty-nine randomised controlled studies, involving 3839 women, are now included. The studies were published from 1975 to 2016 and were mainly carried out in high-income countries. They included women at increased risk of VTE who were pregnant, in childbirth, and after the birth. Treatments assessed included different types and doses of heparin (of low molecular weight heparin and unfractionated heparin), and compression stockings or devices. No deaths occurred. The reported findings were supported by very low-certainty evidence.\nStarting treatment during pregnancy (with or without treatment after childbirth): we looked at the occurrence of symptomatic VTE and adverse effects that caused women to stop treatment. Any benefits of heparin were unclear when compared with no treatment or a placebo (assessed in up to four studies with 476 women). Similarly, for different types of heparin (assessed in up to four studies with 404 women), different doses of low molecular weight heparin (in one study with 144 women), and for compression stockings compared with no stockings (in one study with 44 women).\nFor treatment during and following vaginal or caesarean birth: we are very uncertain about the effects of heparin when compared with no treatment on the occurrence of symptomatic VTE (assessed in one study with 210 women). This study did not report on adverse effects that led women to stop treatment.\nFor treatment during and following caesarean birth: we are very uncertain about the effects of heparin compared with no treatment or a placebo (assessed in up to five studies with 1140 women). The studies looked at different types or doses of heparin, and compression devices compared with bed rest (in one study of 49 women). No adverse effects stopping treatment were reported.\nLooking at treatment following vaginal or caesarean birth: no symptomatic VTEs were reported in women receiving either heparin or no treatment or placebo in two studies (58 women). No study reported on adverse effects leading to women stopping treatment."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7247
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMucopolysaccharidosis type VI (MPS VI) or Maroteaux-Lamy syndrome is a rare genetic disorder caused by the deficiency of arylsulphatase B. The resultant accumulation of dermatan sulphate causes lysosomal damage.\nThe clinical symptoms are related to skeletal dysplasia (i.e. short stature and degenerative joint disease). Other manifestations include cardiac disease, impaired pulmonary function, ophthalmological complications, hepatosplenomegaly, sinusitis, otitis, hearing loss and sleep apnea. Intellectual impairment is generally absent. Clinical manifestation is typically by two or three years of age; however, slowly progressive cases may not present until adulthood.\nEnzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with galsulfase is considered a new approach for treating MPS VI.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of treating MPS VI by ERT with galsulfase compared to other interventions, placebo or no intervention.\nSearch methods\nEletronic searches were performed on the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register. Date of the latest search: 09 June 2021.\nFurther searches of the following databases were also performed: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, the Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Date of the latest search: 20 August 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized and quasi-randomized controlled clinical studies of ERT with galsulfase compared to other interventions or placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the the evidence using the GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nOne study was included involving 39 participants who received either ERT with galsulfase (recombinant human arylsulphatase B) or placebo. This small study was considered overall to have an unclear risk of bias in relation to the design and implementation of the study, since the authors did not report how both the allocation generation and concealment were performed.\nGiven the very low certainty of the evidence, we are uncertain whether at 24 weeks there was a difference between groups in relation to the 12-minute walk test, mean difference (MD) of 92.00 meters (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.00 to 172.00), or the three-minute stair climb, MD 5.70 (95% CI -0.10 to 11.50).\nIn relation to respiratory tests, we are uncertain whether galsulfase makes any difference as compared to placebo in forced vital capacity in litres (FVC (L) (absolute change in baseline), given the very low certainty of the evidence. Cardiac function was not reported in the included study. We found that galsulfase, as compared to placebo, may decrease urinary glycosaminoglycan levels at 24 weeks, MD -227.00 (95% CI -264.00 to -190.00) (low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain whether there are differences between the galsulfase and placebo groups in relation to adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). In general, the dose of galsulfase was well tolerated and there were no differences between groups. These events include drug-related adverse events, serious and severe adverse events, those during infusion, drug-related adverse events during infusion, and deaths. More infusion-related reactions were observed in the galsulfase group and were managed with interruption or slowing of infusion rate or administration of antihistamines or corticosteroids drugs. No deaths occurred during the study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review are based only on one small study (a 24-week randomised phase of the study and prior to the open-label extension). We are uncertain whether galsulfase is more effective than placebo, for treating people with MPS VI, in relation to the 12-minute walk test or the three-minute stair climb, as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. We found that galsulfase may reduce urinary glycosaminoglycans levels. We are also uncertain whether there are any differences between treatment groups in relation to cardiac or pulmonary functions, liver or spleen volume, overnight apnea-hypopnea, height and weight, quality of life and adverse effects.\nFurther studies are needed to obtain more information on the long-term effectiveness and safety of ERT with galsulfase.\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 methods and the study design were not clearly described and the impact of this on possible bias is unclear. The certainty of the evidence has been graded as low to very low."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7248
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUltrasound and liver function tests (serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase) are used as screening tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests.\nObjectives\nTo determine and compare the accuracy of ultrasound versus liver function tests for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov to September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment, Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for ultrasound, serum bilirubin, or serum alkaline phosphatase. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test result, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct, or symptom-free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test result as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion independently.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently collected data from each study. Where meta-analysis was possible, we used the bivariate model to summarise sensitivity and specificity.\nMain results\nFive studies including 523 participants reported the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound. One studies (262 participants) compared the accuracy of ultrasound, serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase in the same participants. All the studies included people with symptoms. One study included only participants without previous cholecystectomy but this information was not available from the remaining studies. All the studies were of poor methodological quality. The sensitivities for ultrasound ranged from 0.32 to 1.00, and the specificities ranged from 0.77 to 0.97. The summary sensitivity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.90) and the specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.95). At the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.408, the post-test probability (95% CI) associated with positive ultrasound tests was 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.91), and negative ultrasound tests was 0.17 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.33).\nThe single study of liver function tests reported diagnostic accuracy at two cut-offs for bilirubin (greater than 22.23 μmol/L and greater than twice the normal limit) and two cut-offs for alkaline phosphatase (greater than 125 IU/L and greater than twice the normal limit). This study also assessed ultrasound and reported higher sensitivities for bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase at both cut-offs but the specificities of the markers were higher at only the greater than twice the normal limit cut-off. The sensitivity for ultrasound was 0.32 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.54), bilirubin (cut-off greater than 22.23 μmol/L) was 0.84 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.95), and alkaline phosphatase (cut-off greater than 125 IU/L) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.99). The specificity for ultrasound was 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97), bilirubin (cut-off greater than 22.23 μmol/L) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.94), and alkaline phosphatase (cut-off greater than 125 IU/L) was 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.84). No study reported the diagnostic accuracy of a combination of bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase, or combinations with ultrasound.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMany people may have common bile duct stones in spite of having a negative ultrasound or liver function test. Such people may have to be re-tested with other modalities if the clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones is very high because of their symptoms. False-positive results are also possible and further non-invasive testing is recommended to confirm common bile duct stones to avoid the risks of invasive testing.\nIt should be noted that these results were based on few studies of poor methodological quality and the results for ultrasound varied considerably between studies. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and liver function tests.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We identified five studies including 523 participants that reported the diagnostic test accuracy of ultrasound. One of these studies, involving 262 participants, also reported the diagnostic test accuracy of serum bilirubin and serum alkaline phosphatase. All the studies included people with symptoms. One study included only participants who had not undergone previous cholecystectomy (removal of gallbladder). This information was not available from the remaining studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7249
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is the most common acute leukaemia affecting adults. Most patients diagnosed with AML are at advanced age and present with co-morbidities, so that intensive therapy such as stem cell transplantation (SCT) is impossible to provide or is accompanied by high risks for serious adverse events and treatment-related mortality. Especially for these patients, it is necessary to find out whether all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA), an intermediate of vitamin A inducing terminal differentiation of leukaemic cell lines, added to chemotherapy confers increased benefit or harm when compared with the same chemotherapy alone.\nObjectives\nThis review aims to determine benefits and harms of ATRA in addition to chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone for adults with AML (not those with acute promyelocytic leukaemia (non-APL)).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, study registries and relevant conference proceedings up to July 2018 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also contacted experts for unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing chemotherapy alone with chemotherapy plus ATRA in patients with all stages of AML. We excluded trials if less than 80% of participants were adults or participants with AML, and if no subgroup data were available. Patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were included, if they had a refractory anaemia and more than 20% of blasts.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. We used hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS; instead of the pre-planned event-free survival, as this outcome was not reported), and we calculated risk ratios (RR) for the other outcomes quality of life, on-study mortality and adverse events. We presented all measures with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nOur search resulted in 2192 potentially relevant references, of which we included eight trials with 28 publications assessing 3998 patients. Overall, we judged the potential risk of bias of the eight included trials as moderate. Two of eight trials were published as abstracts only. All the included trials used different chemotherapy schedules and one trial only evaluated the effect of the hypomethylating agent decitabine, a drug know to affect epigenetics, in combination with ATRA.\nThe addition of ATRA to chemotherapy resulted in probably little or no difference in OS compared to chemotherapy only (2985 participants; HR 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.02); moderate-certainty evidence). Based on a mortality rate at 24 months of 70% with chemotherapy alone, the mortality rate with chemotherapy plus ATRA was 68% (95% CI 65% to 71%).\nFor DFS, complete response rate (CRR) and on-study mortality there was probably little or no difference between treatment groups (DFS: 1258 participants, HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; CRR: 3081 participants, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; on-study mortality: 2839 participants, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.30, all moderate-certainty evidence).\nThree trials with 1428 participants reported the adverse events 'infection' and 'cardiac toxicity': There was probably no, or little difference in terms of infection rate between participants receiving ATRA or not (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.15; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether ATRA decreases cardiac toxicity (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.90; P = 0.02, very low certainty-evidence, however, cardiac toxicity was low).\n\nRates and severity of diarrhoea and nausea/vomiting were assessed in two trials with 337 patients and we are uncertain whether there is a difference between treatment arms (diarrhoea: RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 4.47; nausea/vomiting: RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.85; both very low-certainty evidence).\nQuality of life was not reported by any of the included trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no evidence for a difference between participants receiving ATRA in addition to chemotherapy or chemotherapy only for the outcome OS. Regarding DFS, CRR and on-study mortality, there is probably no evidence for a difference between treatment groups. Currently, it seems the risk of adverse events are comparable to chemotherapy only.\nAs quality of life has not been evaluated in any of the included trials, further research is needed to clarify the effect of ATRA on quality of life.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review aims to determine benefits and harms of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) in addition to chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone for adults with AML. We did not evaluate participants with acute promyelocytic leukaemia (APL). We collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question and found eight studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7250
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeyronie's disease is a condition that results in the development of penile plaques that can lead to penile curvature, pain, and erectile dysfunction, making sexual activity difficult. A number of non-surgical interventions exist to improve this condition, which include topical and injection agents as well as mechanical methods; however, their effectiveness remains uncertain. We performed this review to determine the effects of these non-surgical treatments.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of non-surgical therapies compared to placebo or no treatment in individuals with Peyronie's disease.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 23 September 2022. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.\nSelection criteria\nWe included trials in which men with Peyronie's disease were randomized to undergo non-surgical therapies versus placebo or no treatment for penile curvature and sexual function.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo of four review authors, working in pairs, independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. Primary outcomes were: patient-reported ability to have intercourse, quality of life, and treatment-related adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were: degree of penile curvature, discontinuation from treatment (for any reason), subjective patient-reported change in penile curvature, and improvement in penile pain. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nOur search identified 1288 relevant references of which we included 18 records corresponding to 14 unique randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1810 men. These informed 10 distinct comparisons with relevant outcome data that were mostly extracted from single trials. In this abstract, we focus only on the most clinically relevant comparisons for the three primary outcomes and also include the outcome of degree penile curvature.\nInjectional collagenase (short-term): We found no short-term evidence on injectional collagenase for patients' self-reported ability to have intercourse and treatment-related adverse effects compared to placebo injection. Injectional collagenase may result in little to no difference in quality of life (scale 0 to 20 with lower scores indicating better quality of life; mean difference (MD) 1.8 lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.58 to -0.02; 1 study, 134 participants; low CoE) and there may be little to no effect on the degree of penile curvature (MD 10.90 degrees less, 95% CI -16.24 to -5.56; 1 study, 136 participants; low CoE).\nInjectional collagenase (long-term): We also found no long-term evidence on injectional collagenase for patients' self-reported ability to have intercourse compared to placebo injection. It likely results in little to no effect on quality of life (MD 1.00 lower, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.40; 1 study, 612 participants; moderate CoE). Treatment-related adverse effects are likely increased (risk ratio (RR) 2.32, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.72; 1 study, 832 participants; moderate CoE). Injectional collagenase likely results in little to no change in the degree of penile curvature (MD 6.90 degrees less, 95% CI -9.64 to -4.14; 1 study, 612 participants; moderate CoE).\nInjectional verapamil (short-term): We are very uncertain how injectional verapamil may affect patients' self-reported ability to have intercourse compared to placebo injection short-term (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 114.70; 1 study, 14 participants; very low CoE). We found no evidence for the outcome of quality of life. We are very uncertain how injectional verapamil may affect treatment-related adverse effects (RR not estimable; 1 study, 14 participants; very low CoE). Similarly, we are very uncertain how injectional verapamil may affect degree of penile curvature (MD -1.86, 95% CI -10.39 to 6.67; 1 study, 14 participants; very low CoE). We found no long-term data for any outcome.\nExtracorporeal shock wave treatment (ESWT) (short-term): We are very uncertain how ESWT affects patients' self-reported ability to have intercourse short-term (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.60; 1 study, 26 participants; very low CoE). ESWT may result in little to no difference in quality of life (MD 3.10, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.64; 2 studies, 130 participants; low CoE). We are very uncertain if ESWT has an effect on treatment-related adverse effects (RR 2.73, 95% CI 0.74 to 10.14; 3 studies, 166 participants; very low CoE). ESWT may result in little to no difference in the degree of penile curvature compared to placebo (RR -2.84, 95% -7.35 to 1.67; 3 studies, 166 participants; low CoE). We found no long-term data for any outcome.\nPenile traction therapy (short-term): We found no evidence for whether penile traction compared to no treatment affects patients' self-reported ability to have intercourse. We are very uncertain how traction therapy may affect quality of life (MD 1.50 lower, 95% CI -3.42 to 0.42; 1 study, 90 participants; very low CoE). We are also very uncertain how traction therapy may affect treatment-related adverse effects (RR not estimable; 1 study, 90 participants; very low CoE) and how it affects the degree of curvature (MD 7.40 degrees less, 95% CI -11.18 to -3.62; 1 study, 89 participants; very low CoE). We found no long-term data for any outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is little evidence supporting the effectiveness of most non-surgical treatments for Peyronie’s disease. Existing trials are mostly of poor methodological quality and/or fail to address patient-centered outcomes. Injectional collagenase appears to have some effectiveness; however, many individuals may not experience the improvement as clinically relevant, and this comes with the risk of increased adverse events. There is a critical need for better non-surgical treatment options for men with Peyronie’s disease.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Methods\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We used the recommended Cochrane methods, including GRADE to rate the certainty of the evidence."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7251
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nExternal root resorption is a pathological process, which tends to occur following a wide range of mechanical or chemical stimuli such as infection, pressure, trauma or orthodontic tooth movement. Although it is predominantly detected by radiography, in some cases root resorption may be identified by clinical symptoms such as pain, swelling and mobility of the tooth. Treatment alternatives are case-dependent and aim to address the cause of the resorption and aid the regeneration of the resorptive lesion.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of any interventions that can be used in the management of external root resorption in permanent teeth.\nSearch methods\nThe following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 14 October 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 14 October 2015) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 14 October 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO 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 of permanent teeth with any type of external root resorption, which has been confirmed by clinical and radiological examination, comparing one type of intervention (root canal medications and canal filling, splinting or extraction of teeth or the surgical removal of any relevant pathology) with another, or with placebo or no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened search records independently. Full papers were obtained for potentially relevant trials. If data had been extracted, the statistical guidelines set out in the Cochrane Handbook would have been followed.\nMain results\nNo randomised controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria were identified. However, we identified one ongoing study that is potentially relevant to this review and will be assessed when it is published.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe were unable to identify any reports of randomised controlled trials regarding the efficacy of different interventions for the management of external root resorption. In view of the lack of reliable evidence on this topic, clinicians must decide on the most appropriate means of managing this condition according to their clinical experience with regard to patient-related factors. There is a need for well designed and conducted clinical trials on this topic, which conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).\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": "Authors from the Cochrane Oral Health Group carried out this review of existing studies, and the evidence is current up to 14 October 2015. There were no studies found that met the inclusion criteria for this review."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7252
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEplerenone is an aldosterone receptor blocker that is chemically derived from spironolactone. In Canada, it is indicated for use as adjunctive therapy to reduce mortality for heart failure patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II systolic chronic heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. It is also used as adjunctive therapy for patients with heart failure following myocardial infarction. Additionally, it is indicated for the treatment of mild and moderate essential hypertension for patients who cannot be treated adequately with other agents. It is important to determine the clinical impact of all antihypertensive medications, including aldosterone antagonists, to support their continued use in essential hypertension. No previous systematic reviews have evaluated the effect of eplerenone on cardiovascular morbidity, mortality, and magnitude of blood pressure lowering in patients with hypertension.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of eplerenone monotherapy versus placebo for primary hypertension in adults. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events (fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction), cerebrovascular events (fatal or non fatal strokes), adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 3 March 2016. We handsearched references from retrieved studies to identify any studies missed in the initial search. We also searched for unpublished data by contacting the corresponding authors of the included studies and pharmaceutical companies involved in conducting studies on eplerenone monotherapy in primary hypertension. The search had no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomized placebo-controlled trials studying adult patients with primary hypertension. We excluded studies in people with secondary or gestational hypertension and studies where participants were receiving multiple antihypertensives.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently reviewed the search results for studies meeting our criteria. Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using a standardized data extraction form. A fourth independent review author resolved discrepancies or disagreements. We performed data extraction and synthesis using a standardized format on Covidence. We conducted data analysis using Review Manager 5.\nMain results\nA total of 1437 adult patients participated in the five randomized parallel group studies, with treatment durations ranging from 8 to 16 weeks. The daily doses of eplerenone ranged from 25 mg to 400 mg daily. Meta-analysis of these studies showed a reduction in systolic blood pressure of 9.21 mmHg (95% CI −11.08 to −7.34; I2 = 58%) and a reduction of diastolic pressure of 4.18 mmHg (95% CI −5.03 to −3.33; I2 = 0%) (moderate quality evidence).\nThere may be a dose response effect for eplerenone in the reduction in systolic blood pressure at doses of 400 mg/day. However, this finding is uncertain, as it is based on a single included study with low quality evidence. Overall there does not appear to be a clinically important dose response in lowering systolic or diastolic blood pressure at eplerenone doses of 50 mg to 400 mg daily. There did not appear to be any differences in the number of patients who withdrew due to adverse events or the number of patients with at least one adverse event in the eplerenone group compared to placebo. However, only three of the five included studies reported adverse events. Most of the included studies were of moderate quality, as we judged multiple domains as being at unclear risk in the 'Risk of bias' assessment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEplerenone 50 to 200 mg/day lowers blood pressure in people with primary hypertension by 9.21 mmHg systolic and 4.18 mmHg diastolic compared to placebo, with no difference of effect between doses of 50 mg/day to 200 mg/day. A dose of 25 mg/day did not produce a statistically significant reduction in systolic or diastolic blood pressure and there is insufficient evidence for doses above 200 mg/day. There is currently no available evidence to determine the effect of eplerenone on clinically meaningful outcomes such as mortality or morbidity in hypertensive patients. The evidence available on side effects is insufficient and of low quality, which makes it impossible to draw conclusions about potential harm associated with eplerenone treatment in hypertensive patients.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The aim of this review was to determine the effectiveness of eplerenone for reducing blood pressure, its side effect profile, and its impact on clinically meaningful outcomes such as mortality and morbidity."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7253
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013. Long-term central venous catheters (CVCs), including tunnelled CVCs (TCVCs) and totally implanted devices or ports (TIDs), are increasingly used when treating people with cancer. Despite international guidelines on sterile insertion and appropriate CVC maintenance and use, infections remain a common complication. These infections are mainly caused by gram-positive bacteria. Antimicrobial prevention strategies aimed at these micro-organisms could potentially decrease the majority of CVC-related infections. The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of gram-positive infections in people with cancer who have long-term CVCs.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of administering antibiotics prior to the insertion of long-term CVCs or as a flush/lock solution, or both during long-term CVC access to prevent gram-positive CVC-related infections in adults and children receiving treatment for cancer.\nSearch methods\nThe search for this updated review was conducted on 19 November 2020. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal for additional articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared either the administration of prophylactic antibiotics prior to long-term CVC insertion versus no administration of antibiotics, or the use of an antibiotic versus a non-antibiotic flush/lock solution in long-term CVCs, in adults and children receiving treatment for cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently selected studies, classified them and extracted data onto a predesigned data collection form. The outcomes of interest were gram-positive catheter-related infection events and total number of CVCs and CVC days. We pooled the data using a random-effects model for meta-analyses. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nFor this update, we identified 310 potentially relevant studies and screened them for eligibility. We included one additional RCT with 404 participants. The original review included 11 RCTs with a total of 840 people with cancer (adults and children). In total this review included 12 RCTs with 1244 participants.\nAntibiotics prior to insertion of the CVC\nSix trials compared the use of antibiotics (vancomycin, teicoplanin, ceftazidime or cefazolin) versus no antibiotics given before the insertion of a long-term CVC. One study did not observe any CVC-related infection events in either group was not included in the quantitative analysis as it was not possible to calculate a risk ratio. Administering an antibiotic prior to insertion of the CVC may not reduce gram-positive CVC-related infections (pooled risk ratio 0.67, confidence interval (CI) 95% 0.32 to 1.43; control versus intervention group risk 10.4% versus 7.3% of the participants; 5 studies, 648 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We sought adverse event data, but these were not described by the authors. The overall risk of bias was deemed low.\nAntibiotics as a flushing or locking solution\nSix trials compared a combined antibiotic (vancomycin, amikacin or taurolidine) and heparin solution with a heparin-only solution for flushing or locking the long-term CVC after use. One study did not observe any CVC-related sepsis events (CRS) and was not included in this study in the quantitative analysis as it was not possible to calculate a risk ratio. Flushing and locking long-term CVCs with a combined antibiotic and heparin solution likely reduced the risk of gram-positive CVC-related infections compared to a heparin-only solution (pooled rate ratio 0.47, CI 95% 0.26 to 0.85; control versus intervention group rate ratio 0.66 versus 0.27 per 1000 CVC-days; 5 studies, 443 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial reported a higher incidence of occlusions and participants in one trial reported an unpleasant taste after flushing associated with a combined antibiotic and heparin solution. The overall risk of bias was deemed low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSince the last version of this review, we included one additional study. There was no observed benefit of administering antibiotics before the insertion of long-term CVCs to prevent gram-positive CVC-related infections. Flushing or locking long-term CVCs with an antibiotic solution likely reduces gram-positive CVC-related infections experienced in people at risk of neutropenia through chemotherapy or disease. However, a limitation of this review is heterogeneity between the studies for both outcomes. Insufficient data were available to evaluate if the conclusions apply equally for different CVC types and for adults versus children. It must be noted that the use of an antibiotic flush/lock solution may increase microbial antibiotic resistance, therefore it should be reserved for high-risk people or if the baseline CVC-related infection rates are high. Further research is needed to identify high-risk groups most likely to benefit from these antibiotic flush/lock solutions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"The aim of the review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The aim of this review was to determine whether giving antibiotics before catheter insertion or as a lock/flush solution can prevent gram-positive CVC-related infections."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7254
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGood neurological outcome after cardiac arrest is difficult to achieve. Interventions during the resuscitation phase and treatment within the first hours after the event are critical for a favourable prognosis. Experimental evidence suggests that therapeutic hypothermia is beneficial, and several clinical studies on this topic have been published. This review was originally published in 2009; updated versions were published in 2012 and 2016.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest in adults compared to standard treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 30 September 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults comparing therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest with standard treatment (control). We included studies with adults cooled by any method, applied within six hours of cardiac arrest, to target body temperatures of 32 °C to 34 °C. Good neurological outcome was defined as no or only minor brain damage allowing people to live an independent life.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. neurological recovery. Our secondary outcomes were 2. survival to hospital discharge, 3. quality of life, 4. cost-effectiveness and 5. adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty.\nMain results\nWe found 12 studies with 3956 participants reporting the effects of therapeutic hypothermia on neurological outcome or survival. There were some concerns about the quality of all the studies, and two studies had high risk of bias overall. When we compared conventional cooling methods versus any type of standard treatment (including a body temperature of 36 °C), we found that participants in the therapeutic hypothermia group were more likely to reach a favourable neurological outcome (risk ratio (RR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 1.76; 11 studies, 3914 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low.\nWhen we compared therapeutic hypothermia with fever prevention or no cooling, we found that participants in the therapeutic hypothermia group were more likely to reach a favourable neurological outcome (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.23; 8 studies, 2870 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low.\nWhen we compared therapeutic hypothermia methods with temperature management at 36 °C, there was no evidence of a difference between groups (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.53; 3 studies; 1044 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low.\nAcross all studies, the incidence of pneumonia, hypokalaemia and severe arrhythmia was increased amongst participants receiving therapeutic hypothermia (pneumonia: RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.18; 4 trials, 3634 participants; hypokalaemia: RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.84; 2 trials, 975 participants; severe arrhythmia: RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.64; 3 trials, 2163 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low (pneumonia, severe arrhythmia) to very low (hypokalaemia). There were no differences in other reported adverse events between groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence suggests that conventional cooling methods to induce therapeutic hypothermia may improve neurological outcomes after cardiac arrest. We obtained available evidence from studies in which the target temperature was 32 °C to 34 °C.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to know whether people resuscitated from cardiac arrest recover better when their bodies are cooled to a temperature of 32 °C to 34 °C."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7255
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe majority of children who present with their first episode of nephrotic syndrome achieve remission with corticosteroid therapy. Children who fail to respond to corticosteroids in the first episode of nephrotic syndrome (initial resistance) or develop resistance after one or more responses to corticosteroids (delayed resistance) may be treated with immunosuppressive agents including calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) (cyclosporin or tacrolimus) and with non-immunosuppressive agents such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). However, response to these agents is limited so newer agents are being assessed for efficacy. This is an update of a review first published in 2004 and updated in 2006, 2010 and 2016.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of different interventions used in children with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome, who do not achieve remission following four weeks or more of daily corticosteroid therapy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies to 17 September 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\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were included if they compared different immunosuppressive agents or non-immunosuppressive agents with placebo, prednisone or other agent given orally or parenterally in children aged three months to 18 years with steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS). Studies, which enrolled children and adults but in which paediatric data could not be separated from adult data, were also included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently searched the literature, determined study eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, results were expressed as mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. Data were pooled using the random effects model. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nTwenty-five studies (1063 participants) were included. Fourteen studies were at low risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment. Five and 19 studies were at low risk of performance and detection bias. Fourteen, 14 and 13 studies were at low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias respectively.\nCyclosporin compared with placebo or no treatment may increase the number of participants who achieve complete remission (4 studies, 74 participants: RR 3.50, 95% CI 1.09 to 11.20) or complete or partial remission (4 studies, 74 children: RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.04 to 9.57) by 6 months (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether cyclosporin increases the likelihood of worsening hypertension or reduces the likelihood of end-stage kidney disease (very low certainty evidence).\nCNI compared with IV cyclophosphamide (CPA) may increase the number of participants with complete or partial remission at 3 to 6 months (2 studies, 156 children: RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.13) (low certainty evidence) and probably reduces the number with treatment failure (non response, serious infection, persistently elevated creatinine (1 study, 124 participants: RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.58) (moderate certainty evidence) with little or no increase in serious infections (1 study, 131 participants: RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.56) (moderate certainty evidence).\nTacrolimus compared with cyclosporin may make little or no difference to the number who achieve complete or partial remission (2 studies, 58 participants: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.25) (low certainty evidence) or in the number with worsening hypertension (2 studies, 58 participants: RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.15) (low certainty evidence).\nCyclosporin compared with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and dexamethasone probably makes little or no difference to the number who achieve complete or partial remission (1 study, 138 participants: RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.87 to 5.24) (moderate certainty evidence) and makes little or no difference to the number dying (1 study, 138 participants: RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.87 to 5.24) or with 50% reduction in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (1 study, 138 participants: RR 2.29, 95% CI 0.46 to 11.41) (low certainty evidence).\nAmong children, who have achieved complete remission, tacrolimus compared with MMF may increase the number of children who maintain complete or partial response for 12 months (1 study, 60 children: RR 2.01, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.07) (low certainty evidence).\nOral CPA with prednisone compared with prednisone alone may make little or no difference to the number who achieve complete remission (2 studies, 84 children: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.87) (low certainty evidence).\nIV CPA compared with oral CPA (2 studies, 61 children: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.85) and IV compared with oral CPA plus IV dexamethasone (1 study, 49 children: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.96) may make little or no difference to the number who achieve complete remission (low certainty evidence).\nIt is uncertain whether rituximab and cyclosporin compared with cyclosporin increases the likelihood of remission because the certainty of the evidence is very low.\nIt is uncertain whether adalimumab or galactose compared with conservative therapy increases the likelihood of remission because the certainty of the evidence is very low.\nTwo studies reported that ACEi may reduce proteinuria in children with SRNS. One study reported that the dual angiotensin II and endothelin Type A receptor antagonist, sparsentan, may reduce proteinuria more effectively than the angiotensin receptor blocker, irbesartan.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTo date RCTs have demonstrated that CNIs may increase the likelihood of complete or partial remission compared with placebo/no treatment or CPA. For other regimens assessed, it remains uncertain whether the interventions alter outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is low. Further adequately powered, well designed RCTs are needed to evaluate other regimens for children with idiopathic SRNS. Since SRNS represents a spectrum of diseases, future studies should enrol children from better defined groups of patients with SRNS.\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": "Calcineurin inhibitors may increase the likelihood of complete or partial remission compared with placebo/no treatment or cyclophosphamide. However, the certainty of the evidence is low because the studies were small. It remains uncertain whether other interventions may alter outcomes due to few small studies. Larger and well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to evaluate other treatment combinations for children with steroid resistant nephrotic syndrome."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7256
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis review replaces an earlier review, \"Methadone for chronic non-cancer pain in adults\". This review serves to update the original and includes only studies of neuropathic pain. Methadone belongs to a class of analgesics known as opioids, that are considered the cornerstone of therapy for moderate-to-severe postsurgical pain and pain due to life-threatening illnesses; however, their use in neuropathic pain is controversial. Methadone has many characteristics that differentiate it from other opioids, which suggests that it may have a different efficacy and safety profile.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases: CENTRAL (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid), and two clinical trial registries. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved articles. The date of the most recent search was 30 November 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks’ duration or longer, comparing methadone (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. There were insufficient data to perform pooled analyses. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nWe included three studies, involving 105 participants. All were cross-over studies, one involving 19 participants with diverse neuropathic pain syndromes, the other two involving 86 participants with postherpetic neuralgia. Study phases ranged from 20 days to approximately eight weeks. All administered methadone orally, in doses ranging from 10 mg to 80 mg daily. Comparators were primarily placebo, but one study also included morphine and tricyclic antidepressants.\nThe included studies had several limitations related to risk of bias, particularly incomplete reporting, selective outcome reporting, and small sample sizes.\nThere were very limited data for our primary outcomes of participants with at least 30% or at least 50% pain relief. Two studies reported that 11/29 participants receiving methadone achieved 30% pain relief versus 7/29 participants receiving placebo. Only one study presented data in a manner that allowed us to calculate the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief. None of the 19 participants achieved a 50% reduction in pain intensity, either when receiving methadone or when receiving placebo. No study provided data for our other primary outcomes of Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC) much or very much improved (equivalent to at least 30% pain relief) and PGIC very much improved (equivalent to at least 50% pain relief).\nFor secondary efficacy outcomes, one study reported maximum and mean pain intensity and pain relief, and reported statistically significant improvements versus placebo for all outcomes with 20 mg daily doses of methadone, but not with 10 mg daily doses. The second study reported differences in pain reduction between methadone (n = 26) and morphine (n = 38) and found morphine to be statistically superior. The third study reported the number of responders (variously defined) for several pain and functional outcomes and found methadone to be statistically superior to placebo for the outcomes of categorical pain intensity and evoked pain. In the two studies that reported data, 0/29 participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy, whereas 4/29 participants withdrew due to adverse events while taking methadone versus 3/29 while taking placebo.\nOne study reported incidences for several individual adverse events, but found a statistically significant increased incidence for methadone over placebo for only one event, dizziness. The other studies did not report data in a manner that enabled us to analyze adverse events. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported.\nWe assessed the quality of the evidence as very low for all efficacy and safety outcomes using GRADE, primarily because of the heterogeneity of study designs and populations, short durations, cross-over methodology, and few participants and events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe three studies provide very limited, very low quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain, and there were too few data for pooled analysis of efficacy or harm, or to have confidence in the results of the individual studies. No conclusions can be made regarding differences in efficacy or safety between methadone and placebo, other opioids, or other treatments.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We rated the quality of the evidence as very low because there were only three small studies with different designs, and with few participants and events. In addition, the studies were probably not long enough to show how well methadone would work (or how safe it would be) over a longer time period. Very low quality evidence means that we are very uncertain about the results."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7257
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a highly prevalent condition in an ever-increasing elderly population. Although insidious in the early stages, advanced AMD (neovascular and atrophic forms) can cause significant visual disability and economic burden on health systems worldwide. The most common form, geographic atrophy, has no effective treatment to date, whereas neovascular AMD can be treated with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections. Geographic atrophy has a slow disease progression and patients tend to have preserved central vision until the final stages. This tendency, coupled with the use of modern imaging modalities, provides a large window of opportunity to intervene with validated methods to assess treatment efficacy. As geographic atrophy is an increasingly common condition with no effective intervention, many treatments are under investigation, one of which is visual cycle modulators. These medications have been shown to reduce lipofuscin accumulation in pre-clinical studies that have led to several clinical trials, reviewed herein.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of visual cycle modulators for the prevention and treatment of geographic atrophy secondary to AMD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2020, Issue 1); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; Web of Science Core Collection; Scopus; Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) website; ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP to 11 January 2020 with no language restrictions. We also searched using the reference lists of reviews and existing studies and the Cited Reference Search function in Web of Science to identify further relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised clinical studies (if available) that compared visual cycle modulators to placebo or no treatment (observation) in people diagnosed with AMD (early, intermediate or geographic atrophy).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data. Both authors entered data into RevMan 5. We resolved discrepancies through discussion. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs from the USA; one of these had clinical sites in Germany. Two studies compared emixustat to placebo while the other compared fenretinide to placebo. All assigned one study eye per participant and, combined, have a total of 821 participants with a majority white ethnicity (97.6%). All participants were diagnosed with geographic atrophy due to AMD based on validated imaging modalities. All three studies have high risk of attrition bias mainly due to ocular adverse effects of emixustat and fenretinide. We considered only one study to be adequately conducted and reported with high risk of bias in only one domain (attrition bias). We considered the other two studies to be poorly reported and to have high risk of attrition bias and reporting bias.\nPeople with geographic atrophy treated with emixustat may not experience a clinically important change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between baseline and 24 months compared to people treated with placebo (mean difference (MD) 1.9 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.34 to 6.14, low-certainty evidence). Emixustat may also result in little or no difference in loss of 15 ETDRS letters or more of BCVA compared with placebo at 24 months (16.4% versus 18%) (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.4, low-certainty evidence). In terms of disease progression, emixustat may result in little or no difference in the annual growth rate of geographic atrophy compared with placebo (mean difference MD 0.09 mm2/year (95% CI -0.26 to 0.44, low-certainty evidence).\nAll three studies reported adverse events of both drugs (emixustat: moderate-certainty evidence; fenretinide: low-certainty evidence). The main adverse events were ocular in nature and associated with the mechanism of action of the drugs. Delayed dark adaptation (emixustat: 54.5%; fenretinide: 39.3%) and chromatopsia (emixustat: 22.6%; fenretinide: 25.2%) were the most common adverse events reported, and were the most prevalent reasons for study dropout in emixustat trials. These effects were dose-dependent and resolved after drug cessation. No specific systemic adverse events were considered related to emixustat; only pruritus and rash were considered to be due to fenretinide. One emixustat study reported six deaths, none deemed related to the drug.\nNone of the included RCTs reported the other pre-specified outcomes, including proportion of participants losing 10 letters or more, and mean change in macular sensitivity. We planned to investigate progression to advanced AMD (geographic atrophy or neovascular AMD) in prevention studies, including participants with early or intermediate AMD, but we identified no such studies.\nTwo of the included studies reported an additional outcome - incidence of choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) - that was not in our published protocol. CNV onset may be reduced in those treated with emixustat but the evidence was uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.65, low-certainty evidence), or fenretinide (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.98, low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. A dose-dependent relationship was observed with emixustat.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited evidence to support the use of visual cycle modulators (emixustat and fenretinide) for the treatment of established geographic atrophy due to AMD. The possible reduction in the incidence of CNV observed with fenretinide, and to a lesser extent, emixustat, requires formal assessment in focused studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found three studies conducted in the USA and Germany that involved a total of 821 people with advanced dry AMD. All three studies were randomised controlled studies: clinical studies where people were randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups. Investigators treated the participants for between 90 days and 24 months, and followed them for between seven and 30 days once treatment ended. The studies compared the effects of a placebo (dummy) treatment against two different visual cycle modulators: emixustat (2 studies) and fenretinide (1 study).\nEmixustat against placebo\nLow-certainty evidence suggested that there may be little to no difference between emixustat and placebo when considering:\n• Average change in vision loss;\n• The proportion of people who lost 15 letters or more according to a vision chart; or\n• The progression of geographic atrophy.\nFenretinide against placebo\nLow-certainty evidence suggested that geographic atrophy may progress at a slightly slower rate in people treated with fenretinide at a dose of 300 mg per day compared to a placebo. However, it was not clear whether this difference was important enough to make a difference to patients.\nAdverse (unwanted) effects\nModerate- to low-certainty evidence suggested that:\n• the most common adverse effects reported were delayed adaptation to darkness and visual disturbance (such as abnormally coloured vision, or darkened areas in the visual field). These effects increased with the size of dose of medicine, and disappeared once the treatment had ended.\n• Emixustat was probably not associated with adverse effects other than problems that affected the eye (such as visual disturbance), or with serious adverse effects.\n• Fenretinide may be associated with an itchy skin, or a rash."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7258
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments conventionally consist of a fresh embryo transfer, possibly followed by one or more cryopreserved embryo transfers in subsequent cycles. An alternative option is to freeze all suitable embryos and transfer cryopreserved embryos in subsequent cycles only, which is known as the 'freeze all' strategy. This is the first update of the Cochrane Review on this comparison.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the freeze all strategy compared to the conventional IVF/ICSI strategy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two registers of ongoing trials from inception until 23 September 2020 for relevant studies, checked references of publications found, and contacted study authors to obtain additional data.\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors (TZ and MZ) independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study data. We included randomised controlled trials comparing a 'freeze all' strategy with a conventional IVF/ICSI strategy including a fresh embryo transfer in women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nThe primary outcomes were cumulative live birth rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Secondary outcomes included effectiveness outcomes (including ongoing pregnancy rate and clinical pregnancy rate), time to pregnancy and obstetric, perinatal and neonatal outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 15 studies in the systematic review and eight studies with a total of 4712 women in the meta-analysis. The overall evidence was of moderate to low quality. We graded all the outcomes and downgraded due to serious risk of bias, serious imprecision and serious unexplained heterogeneity. Risk of bias was associated with unclear blinding of investigators for preliminary outcomes of the study during the interim analysis, unit of analysis error, and absence of adequate study termination rules. There was an absence of high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments for our primary outcomes, which is reflected in the cautious language below.\nThere is probably little or no difference in cumulative live birth rate between the 'freeze all' strategy and the conventional IVF/ICSI strategy (odds ratio (OR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.22; I2 = 0%; 8 RCTs, 4712 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a cumulative live birth rate of 58% following the conventional strategy, the cumulative live birth rate following the 'freeze all' strategy would be between 57% and 63%.\nWomen might develop less OHSS after the 'freeze all' strategy compared to the conventional IVF/ICSI strategy (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.39; I2 = 0%; 6 RCTs, 4478 women; low-quality evidence). These data suggest that for an OHSS rate of 3% following the conventional strategy, the rate following the 'freeze all' strategy would be 1%.\nThere is probably little or no difference between the two strategies in the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.19; I2 = 31%; 4 RCTs, 1245 women; moderate-quality evidence).\nWe could not analyse time to pregnancy; by design, time to pregnancy is shorter in the conventional strategy than in the 'freeze all' strategy when the cumulative live birth rate is comparable, as embryo transfer is delayed in a 'freeze all' strategy. We are uncertain whether the two strategies differ in cumulative miscarriage rate because the evidence is very low quality (Peto OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.55; I2 = 55%; 2 RCTs, 986 women; very low-quality evidence) and cumulative multiple-pregnancy rate (Peto OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.25; I2 = 63%; 2 RCTs, 986 women; very low-quality evidence). The risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (Peto OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.25; I2 = 29%; 3 RCTs, 3940 women; low-quality evidence), having a large-for-gestational-age baby (Peto OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.55; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 3940 women; low-quality evidence) and a higher birth weight of the children born (mean difference (MD) 127 g, 95% CI 77.1 to 177.8; I2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, 1607 singletons; moderate-quality evidence) may be increased following the 'freeze all' strategy. We are uncertain whether the two strategies differ in the risk of having a small-for-gestational-age baby because the evidence is low quality (Peto OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.05; I2 = 64%; 3 RCTs, 3940 women; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found moderate-quality evidence showing that one strategy is probably not superior to the other in terms of cumulative live birth rate and ongoing pregnancy rate. The risk of OHSS may be decreased in the 'freeze all' strategy. Based on the results of the included studies, we could not analyse time to pregnancy. It is likely to be shorter using a conventional IVF/ICSI strategy with fresh embryo transfer in the case of similar cumulative live birth rate, as embryo transfer is delayed in a 'freeze all' strategy. The risk of maternal hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, of having a large-for-gestational-age baby and a higher birth weight of the children born may be increased following the 'freeze all' strategy. We are uncertain if 'freeze all' strategy reduces the risk of miscarriage, multiple pregnancy rate or having a small-for-gestational-age baby compared to conventional IVF/ICSI.\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": "Conventionally, in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments consist of a fresh embryo transfer directly after ovarian hyperstimulation, which is used in order to retrieve oocytes in the IVF/ICSI procedure. In the conventional IVF/ICSI treatment fresh embryo transfer is possibly followed by one or more frozen embryo transfers in subsequent cycles when enough embryos are available. Alternatively, one can opt to 'freeze all' suitable embryos, and transfer frozen embryos in subsequent cycles only, which is also known as the 'freeze all' strategy. In the \"freeze all\" strategy all embryos are frozen to be transferred at later time point when the ovaries are not stimulated. Therefore, this method could reduce the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS, an overreaction to fertility drugs) as OHSS is more severe when pregnancy occurs. Furthermore, studies have suggested that a woman's hormonal response to fertility drugs could affect the lining of the womb making it difficult for an embryo to implant. Thus, it could be beneficial to freeze the embryos and transfer them later when the lining of the womb is not affected by fertility drugs.\nIn the past decade, an increasing number of clinics have applied the 'freeze all' strategy as a standard treatment strategy in their practice. In practice, the 'freeze all' strategy and the conventional strategy can vary technically.\nWe compared the effectiveness and safety of these treatment strategies in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7259
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPouchitis occurs in approximately 50% of patients following ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for chronic ulcerative colitis (UC).\nObjectives\nThe primary objective was to determine the efficacy and safety of medical therapies for prevention or treatment of acute or chronic pouchitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 25 July 2018. We also searched references, trials registers, and conference proceedings.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials of prevention or treatment of acute or chronic pouchitis in adults who underwent IPAA for UC were considered for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. The primary outcome was clinical improvement or remission in participants with acute or chronic pouchitis, or the proportion of participants with no episodes of pouchitis after IPAA. Adverse events (AEs) was a secondary outcome. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each dichotomous outcome.\nMain results\nFifteen studies (547 participants) were included. Four studies assessed treatment of acute pouchitis. Five studies assessed treatment of chronic pouchitis. Six studies assessed prevention of pouchitis. Three studies were low risk of bias. Three studies were high risk of bias and the other studies were unclear.\nAcute pouchitis: All ciprofloxacin participants (7/7) achieved remission at two weeks compared to 33% (3/9) of metronidazole participants (RR 2.68, 95% CI 1.13 to 6.35, very low certainty evidence). No ciprofloxacin participants (0/7) had an AE compared to 33% (3/9) of metronidazole participants (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.98; very low certainty evidence). AEs included vomiting, dysgeusia or transient peripheral neuropathy. Forty-three per cent (6/14) of metronidazole participants achieved remission at 6 weeks compared to 50% (6/12) of budesonide enema participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.96, very low certainty evidence). Fifty per cent (7/14) of metronidazole participants improved clinically at 6 weeks compared to 58% (7/12) of budesonide enema participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.74, very low certainty evidence). Fifty-seven per cent (8/14) of metronidazole participants had an AE compared to 25% (3/12) of budesonide enema participants (RR 2.29, 95% CI 0.78 to 6.73, very low certainty evidence). AEs included anorexia, nausea, headache, asthenia, metallic taste, vomiting, paraesthesia, and depression. Twenty-five per cent (2/8) of rifaximin participants achieved remission at 4 weeks compared to 0% (0/10) of placebo participants (RR 6.11, 95% CI 0.33 to 111.71, very low certainty evidence). Thirty-eight per cent (3/8) of rifaximin participants improved clinically at 4 weeks compared to 30% (3/10) of placebo participants (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.60, very low certainty evidence). Seventy-five per cent (6/8) of rifaximin participants had an AE compared to 50% (5/10) of placebo participants (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.72 to 3.14, very low certainty evidence). AEs included diarrhea, flatulence, nausea, proctalgia, vomiting, thirst, candida, upper respiratory tract infection, increased hepatic enzyme, and cluster headache. Ten per cent (1/10) of Lactobacillus GG participants improved clinically at 12 weeks compared to 0% (0/10) of placebo participants (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 65.90, very low certainty evidence).\nChronic pouchitis: Eighty-five per cent (34/40) of De Simone Formulation (a probiotic formulation) participants maintained remission at 9 to 12 months compared to 3% (1/36) of placebo participants (RR 20.24, 95% CI 4.28 to 95.81, 2 studies; low certainty evidence). Two per cent (1/40) of De Simone Formulation participants had an AE compared to 0% (0/36) of placebo participants (RR 2.43, 95% CI 0.11 to 55.89; low certainty evidence). AEs included abdominal cramps, vomiting and diarrhea. Fifty per cent (3/6) of adalimumab patients achieved clinical improvement at 4 weeks compared to 43% (3/7) of placebo participants (RR, 1.17, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.76, low certainty evidence). Sixty per cent (6/10) of glutamine participants maintained remission at 3 weeks compared to 33% (3/9) of butyrate participants (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 5.16, very low certainty evidence). Forty-five per cent (9/20) of patients treated with bismuth carbomer foam enema improved clinically at 3 weeks compared to 45% (9/20) of placebo participants (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.98, very low certainty evidence). Twenty-five per cent (5/20) of participants in the bismuth carbomer foam enema group had an AE compared to 35% (7/20) of placebo participants (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.88, very low certainty evidence). Adverse events included diarrhea, worsening symptoms, cramping, sinusitis, and abdominal pain.\nPrevention: At 12 months, 90% (18/20) of De Simone Formulation participants had no episodes of acute pouchitis compared to 60% (12/20) of placebo participants (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.21, low certainty evidence). Another study found 100% (16/16) of De Simone Formulation participants had no episodes of acute pouchitis at 12 months compared to 92% (11/12) of the no treatment control group (RR 1.10, 95% 0.89 to 1.36, very low certainty evidence). Eighty-six per cent (6/7) of Bifidobacterium longum participants had no episodes of acute pouchitis at 6 months compared to 60% (3/5) of placebo participants (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.11, very low certainty evidence). Eleven per cent (1/9) of Clostridium butyricum MIYAIRI participants had no episodes of acute pouchitis at 24 months compared to 50% (4/8) of placebo participants (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.60, very low certainty evidence). Forty-six per cent (43/94) of allopurinol participants had no episodes of pouchitis at 24 months compared to 43% (39/90) of placebo participants (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.46; low certainty evidence). Eighty-one per cent (21/26) of tinidazole participants had no episodes of pouchitis over 12 months compared to 58% (7/12) of placebo participants (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.31, very low certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effects of antibiotics, probiotics and other interventions for treating and preventing pouchitis are uncertain. Well designed, adequately powered studies are needed to determine the optimal therapy for the treatment and prevention of pouchitis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Prevention of pouchitis\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "It is uncertain whether De Simone Formulation is more effective than placebo for prevention of pouchitis (1 study, 40 participants). However, it is unclear whether there is any difference in prevention of pouchitis between De Simone Formulation and a no treatment control group (1 study, 28 participants). It is unclear whether there are any differences in prevention of pouchitis betweenClostridium butyricum MIYAIRIand placebo (1 study, 17 participants), Bifidobacterium longumand placebo (1 study, 12 participants),allopurinol and placebo (1 study, 184 participants) and tinidazole and placebo (1 study, 38 participants). The results of these studies are uncertain due to the small number of people who participated in the studies.\nThe effects of antibiotics, probiotics and other interventions for treating and preventing pouchitis are uncertain. More research is needed to determine which of these different medications are best for treatment of pouchitis."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7260
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially life-threatening condition in which a clot can migrate from the deep veins, most commonly in the leg, to the lungs. Conventional treatment of PE used unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), fondaparinux, and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Recently, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and oral factor Xa inhibitors. DOACs have characteristics that may be favourable to conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, no need for frequent monitoring or re-dosing, and few known drug interactions. This review reports the efficacy and safety of these drugs in the long-term treatment of PE (minimum duration of three months). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of PE.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 2 March 2022. We checked the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people with a PE confirmed by standard imaging techniques were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor compared with a conventional anticoagulant or compared with each other for the long-term treatment of PE (minimum duration three months).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent PE, recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and health-related quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified five additional RCTs with 1484 participants for this update. Together with the previously included trials, we have included ten RCTs with a total of 13,073 participants. Two studies investigated an oral DTI (dabigatran) and eight studies investigated oral factor Xa inhibitors (three rivaroxaban, three apixaban, and two edoxaban). The studies were of good methodological quality overall.\nMeta-analysis showed no clear difference in the efficacy and safety of oral DTI compared with conventional anticoagulation in preventing recurrent PE (odds ratio (OR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 2.04; 2 studies, 1602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.66; 2 studies, 1602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), DVT (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.13; 2 studies, 1602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and major bleeding (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.68; 2 studies, 1527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence by one level for imprecision due to the low number of events.\nThere was also no clear difference between the oral factor Xa inhibitors and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent PE (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.29; 3 studies, 8186 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent VTE (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 8 studies, 11,416 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), DVT (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.25; 2 studies, 8151 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.70; 1 study, 4817 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and major bleeding (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.41; 8 studies, 11,447 participants; low-certainty evidence); the heterogeneity for major bleeding was significant (I2 = 79%). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate and low because of imprecision due to the low number of events and inconsistency due to clinical heterogeneity. None of the included studies measured health-related quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAvailable evidence shows there is probably little or no difference between DOACs and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent PE, recurrent VTE, DVT, all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. The certainty of evidence was moderate or low. Future large clinical trials are required to identify if individual drugs differ in effectiveness and bleeding risk, and to explore effect differences in subgroups, including people with cancer and obesity.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How is a pulmonary embolism treated?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Until recently, the standard treatment for a pulmonary embolism was an anticoagulant: a medicine that either treats or prevents blood clots, often called a 'blood thinner'. Conventional anticoagulants include heparin, fondaparinux, and vitamin K antagonists. However, these drugs can cause side effects and have limitations.\nTwo types of anticoagulant have been developed: direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and factor Xa inhibitors. These anticoagulants are given orally (that is, by mouth, in the form of a pill), have a predictable effect, do not require frequent monitoring or re-dosing (taking multiple doses), and have few known interactions with other medicines. For these reasons, direct oral anticoagulants have become the medicines of choice for treating DVT."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7261
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPoor retention of participants in randomised trials can lead to missing outcome data which can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to improve retention but few have been formally evaluated.\nObjectives\nTo quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention of participants in randomised trials and to investigate if the effect varied by trial setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection (SCI-expanded, SSCI, CPSI-S, CPCI-SSH and ESCI) either directly with a specified search strategy or indirectly through the ORRCA database. We also searched the SWAT repository to identify ongoing or recently completed retention trials. We did our most recent searches in January 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included eligible randomised or quasi-randomised trials of evaluations of strategies to increase retention that were embedded in 'host' randomised trials from all disease areas and healthcare settings. We excluded studies aiming to increase treatment compliance.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data on: the retention strategy being evaluated; location of study; host trial setting; method of randomisation; numbers and proportions in each intervention and comparator group. We used a risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to estimate the effectiveness of the strategies to improve retention. We assessed heterogeneity between trials. We applied GRADE to determine the certainty of the evidence within each comparison.\nMain results\nWe identified 70 eligible papers that reported data from 81 retention trials. We included 69 studies with more than 100,000 participants in the final meta-analyses, of which 67 studies evaluated interventions aimed at trial participants and two evaluated interventions aimed at trial staff involved in retention. All studies were in health care and most aimed to improve postal questionnaire response. Interventions were categorised into broad comparison groups: Data collection; Participants; Sites and site staff; Central study management; and Study design.\nThese intervention groups consisted of 52 comparisons, none of which were supported by high-certainty evidence as determined by GRADE assessment. There were four comparisons presenting moderate-certainty evidence, three supporting retention (self-sampling kits, monetary reward together with reminder or prenotification and giving a pen at recruitment) and one reducing retention (inclusion of a diary with usual follow-up compared to usual follow-up alone). Of the remaining studies, 20 presented GRADE low-certainty evidence and 28 presented very low-certainty evidence.\nOur findings do provide a priority list for future replication studies, especially with regard to comparisons that currently rely on a single study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMost of the interventions we identified aimed to improve retention in the form of postal questionnaire response. There were few evaluations of ways to improve participants returning to trial sites for trial follow-up. None of the comparisons are supported by high-certainty evidence. Comparisons in the review where the evidence certainty could be improved with the addition of well-done studies should be the focus for future evaluations.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How certain is the evidence and how up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The strategies we identified were tested in randomised trials run in many different disease areas and settings but, in some cases, were tested in only one trial. None of the comparisons we made provided high quality evidence and more studies are needed to help provide more confidence for the results we did find. The evidence in this Cochrane Review is current to January 2020."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7262
|
[
{
"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: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Gambling problems can lead to severe consequences for gamblers, their family members and friends, and the community. A range of medications are used to treat people with gambling problems, but there are few high-quality reviews of the research evidence to guide which ones should be used in practice."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7263
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nProblem alcohol use is common among people who use illicit drugs (PWID) and is associated with adverse health outcomes. It is also an important factor contributing to a poor prognosis among drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) as it impacts on progression to hepatic cirrhosis or opioid overdose in PWID.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption in PWID (users of opioids and stimulants).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, from inception up to August 2017, and the reference lists of eligible articles. We also searched: 1) conference proceedings (online archives only) of the Society for the Study of Addiction, International Harm Reduction Association, International Conference on Alcohol Harm Reduction and American Association for the Treatment of Opioid Dependence; and 2) online registers of clinical trials: Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Center Watch and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions with other psychosocial treatment, or treatment as usual, in adult PWIDs (aged at least 18 years) with concurrent problem alcohol use.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials (825 participants). We judged the majority of the trials to have a high or unclear risk of bias.\nThe psychosocial interventions considered in the studies were: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training (one study), twelve-step programme (one study), brief intervention (three studies), motivational interviewing (two studies), and brief motivational interviewing (one study). Two studies were considered in two comparisons. There were no data for the secondary outcome, alcohol-related harm. The results were as follows.\nComparison 1: cognitive-behavioural coping skills training versus twelve-step programme (one study, 41 participants)\nThere was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol abstinence assessed with Substance Abuse Calendar and breathalyser at one year: risk ratio (RR) 2.38 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10 to 55.06); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.29), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was very low.\nComparison 2: brief intervention versus treatment as usual (three studies, 197 participants)\nThere was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) or Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) at three months: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.07 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.\nComparison 3: motivational interviewing versus treatment as usual or educational intervention only (three studies, 462 participants)\nThere was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured as scores on the AUDIT or ASSIST at three months: SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.37); and retention in treatment, measured at three months: RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.43), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.\nComparison 4: brief motivational intervention (BMI) versus assessment only (one study, 187 participants)\nMore people reduced alcohol use (by seven or more days in the past month, measured at six months) in the BMI group than in the control group (RR 1.67; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.60). There was no difference between groups for the other primary outcome, retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.02), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was moderate.\nComparison 5: motivational interviewing (intensive) versus motivational interviewing (one study, 163 participants)\nThere was no significant difference between groups for either of the primary outcomes (alcohol use, measured using the Addiction Severity Index-alcohol score (ASI) at two months: MD 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.08); and retention in treatment, measured at end of treatment: RR 17.63 (95% CI 1.03 to 300.48), or for any of the secondary outcomes reported. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low to very low-quality evidence to suggest that there is no difference in effectiveness between different types of psychosocial interventions to reduce alcohol consumption among people who use illicit drugs, and that brief interventions are not superior to assessment-only or to treatment as usual. No firm conclusions can be made because of the paucity of the data and the low quality of the retrieved studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found that the talking therapies led to no differences, or only small differences, for the outcomes assessed. These included abstinence, reduced drinking, and substance use.\nOne study found that there may be no difference between CBCST and the twelve-step programme.\nThree studies found that there may be no difference between brief intervention and usual treatment.\nThree studies found that there may be no difference between MI and usual treatment or education only.\nOne study found that BMI is probably better at reducing alcohol use than usual treatment (needle exchange), but found no differences in other outcomes.\nOne study found that intensive MI may be somewhat better than standard MI at reducing severity of alcohol use disorder among women, but not among men and found no differences in other outcomes.\nIt remains uncertain whether talking therapies reduce alcohol and drug use in people who also have problems with other drugs. High-quality studies are missing and are needed."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7264
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIdiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD) is a neurodegenerative disorder, with the severity of the disability usually increasing with disease duration. IPD affects patients' health-related quality of life, disability, and impairment. Current rehabilitation approaches have limited effectiveness in improving outcomes in patients with IPD, but a possible adjunct to rehabilitation might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability, and hence to improve these outcomes in IPD.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of tDCS in improving motor and non-motor symptoms in people with IPD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases (until February 2016): the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library ; 2016 , Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Rehabdata, and Inspec. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, we searched trial registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings, and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised controlled cross-over trials that compared tDCS versus control in patients with IPD for improving health-related quality of life , disability, and impairment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality (JM and MP) and extracted data (BE and JM). If necessary, we contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trial reports.\nMain results\nWe included six trials with a total of 137 participants. We found two studies with 45 participants examining the effects of tDCS compared to control (sham tDCS) on our primary outcome measure, impairment, as measured by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). There was very low quality evidence for no effect of tDCS on change in global UPDRS score ( mean difference (MD) -7.10 %, 95% confidence interval (CI -19.18 to 4.97; P = 0.25, I² = 21%, random-effects model). However, there was evidence of an effect on UPDRS part III motor subsection score at the end of the intervention phase (MD -14.43%, 95% CI -24.68 to -4.18; P = 0.006, I² = 2%, random-effects model; very low quality evidence). One study with 25 participants measured the reduction in off and on time with dyskinesia, but there was no evidence of an effect (MD 0.10 hours, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.34; P = 0.41, I² = 0%, random-effects model; and MD 0.00 hours, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.12; P = 1, I² = 0%, random- effects model, respectively; very low quality evidence).\nTwo trials with a total of 41 participants measured gait speed using measures of timed gait at the end of the intervention phase, revealing no evidence of an effect ( standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.50, 95% CI -0.17 to 1.18; P = 0.14, I² = 11%, random-effects model; very low quality evidence). Another secondary outcome was health-related quality of life and we found one study with 25 participants reporting on the physical health and mental health aspects of health-related quality of life (MD 1.00 SF-12 score, 95% CI -5.20 to 7.20; I² = 0%, inverse variance method with random-effects model; very low quality evidence; and MD 1.60 SF-12 score, 95% CI -5.08 to 8.28; I² = 0%, inverse variance method with random-effects model; very low quality evidence, respectively). We found no study examining the effects of tDCS for improving activities of daily living. In two of six studies, dropouts , adverse events, or deaths occurring during the intervention phase were reported. There was insufficient evidence that dropouts , adverse effects, or deaths were higher with intervention (risk difference (RD) 0.04, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.12; P = 0.40, I² = 0%, random-effects model; very low quality evidence).\nWe found one trial with a total of 16 participants examining the effects of tDCS plus movement therapy compared to control (sham tDCS) plus movement therapy on our secondary outcome, gait speed at the end of the intervention phase, revealing no evidence of an effect (MD 0.05 m/s, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.25; inverse variance method with random-effects model; very low quality evidence). We found no evidence of an effect regarding differences in dropouts and adverse effects between intervention and control groups (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.21; Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects model; very low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of tDCS for reducing off time ( when the symptoms are not controlled by the medication) and on time with dyskinesia ( time that symptoms are controlled but the person still experiences involuntary muscle movements ) , and for improving health- related quality of life, disability, and impairment in patients with IPD. Evidence of very low quality indicates no difference in dropouts and adverse events between tDCS and control groups.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The latest search was performed on 17 February 2016."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7265
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMore than 400,000 cases of oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (OPSCC) are diagnosed every year worldwide and this is rising. Much of the increase has been attributed to human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV-positive OPSCC patients are often younger and have significantly improved survival relative to HPV-negative patients. Traditional management of OPSCC has been with radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy, as this was shown to have similar survival to open surgery but with significantly lower morbidity. Techniques have evolved, however, with the development of computerised planning and intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and of minimally invasive surgical techniques. Acute and late toxicities associated with chemoradiotherapy are a significant burden for OPSCC patients and with an ever-younger cohort, any strategies that could decrease treatment-associated morbidity should be investigated.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of de-intensified adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy in comparison to standard adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy in patients treated with minimally invasive transoral surgery (transoral robotic surgery or transoral laser microsurgery) for resectable HPV-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 26 April 2018.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with carcinoma of the oropharynx (as defined by the World Health Organization classification C09, C10). Cancers included were primary HPV-positive squamous cell tumours originating from the oropharyngeal mucosa. Tumours were classified as T1-4a with or without nodal spread and with no evidence of distant metastatic spread. The intervention was minimally invasive transoral surgery followed by de-intensified adjuvant therapy (either omission of chemotherapy or reduced-dose radiotherapy). The comparator was minimally invasive transoral surgery followed by standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy or standard-dose radiotherapy. The treatments received were of curative intent and patients had not undergone any prior intervention, other than diagnostic biopsy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were overall survival (disease-related survival was to be studied where possible) and disease-free survival, measured at one, two, three and five years. Our secondary outcomes included assessment of swallowing ability and voice, measured at one, six, 12 and 24 months. We planned to use GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any completed RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. However, three eligible studies are in progress:\nADEPT is a phase III trial comparing postoperative radiotherapy with or without cisplatin in HPV-positive T1-4a OPSCC patients. Included patients must have received minimally invasive surgery and demonstrated extra-capsular spread from disease in the neck.\nECOG-E3311 is a phase II trial of treatment for HPV-positive locally advanced OPSCC (stages III-IVa + IVb without distant metastasis). Patients are stratified after minimally invasive surgery. Medium-risk patients are randomised to either standard or reduced-dose radiotherapy.\nPATHOS is a phase III trial of treatment for HPV-positive OPSCC (T1-3, N0-2b). Patients are stratified after minimally invasive surgery. Medium-risk patients are randomised to either standard or reduced-dose radiotherapy. High-risk patients are randomised to radiotherapy with or without concurrent cisplatin.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review highlights the current lack of high-quality randomised controlled trials studying treatment de-escalation after minimally invasive surgery in patients with HPV-positive OPSCC. However, trials that will meet the inclusion criteria for this review are in progress with results expected between 2021 and 2023.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "What are the effects of reduced-dose radiotherapy/chemotherapy treatment compared to standard-dose treatment after keyhole surgery for throat cancer caused by human papillomavirus (HPV)?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7266
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRoutine monitoring of gastric residual in preterm infants on gavage feeds is a common practice used to guide initiation and advancement of feeds. It is believed that an increase in or an altered gastric residual may be predictive of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). Withholding monitoring of gastric residual may take away the early indicator and thus may increase the risk of NEC. However, routine monitoring of gastric residual as a guide, in the absence of uniform standards, may lead to unnecessary delay in initiation and advancement of feeds and hence might result in a delay in establishing full enteral feeds. This in turn may increase the duration of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and central venous line usage, increasing the risk of associated complications. Furthermore, delays in establishing full enteral feeds increase the risk of extrauterine growth restriction and neurodevelopmental impairment.\nObjectives\n• To assess the efficacy and safety of routine monitoring versus no monitoring of gastric residual in preterm infants\n• To assess the efficacy and safety of routine monitoring of gastric residual based on two different criteria for interrupting feeds or decreasing feed volume in preterm infants\nSearch methods\nWe conducted searches in Cochrane CENTRAL via CRS, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL in February 2022. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi- and cluster-RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected RCTs that compared routine monitoring versus no monitoring of gastric residual and trials that used two different criteria for gastric residual to interrupt feeds in preterm infants.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trial eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial/harmful outcome (NNTB/NNTH) for dichotomous outcomes with significant results. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included five studies (423 infants) in this updated review.\nRoutine monitoring versus no routine monitoring of gastric residual in preterm infants\nFour RCTs with 336 preterm infants met the inclusion criteria for this comparison. Three studies were performed in infants with birth weight of < 1500 g, while one study included infants with birth weight between 750 g and 2000 g. The trials were unmasked but were otherwise of good methodological quality.\nRoutine monitoring of gastric residual:\n- probably has little or no effect on the risk of NEC (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.57; 334 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence);\n- probably increases the time to establish full enteral feeds (MD 3.14 days, 95% CI 1.93 to 4.36; 334 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence);\n- may increase the time to regain birth weight (MD 1.70 days, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.39; 80 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence);\n- may increase the number of infants with feed interruption episodes (RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.20; NNTH 3, 95% CI 2 to 5; 191 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence);\n- probably increases the number of TPN days (MD 2.57 days, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.95; 334 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence);\n- probably increases the risk of invasive infection (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.19; NNTH 10, 95% CI 5 to 100; 334 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence);\n- may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality before hospital discharge (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.77 to 5.97; 273 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nQuality and volume of gastric residual compared to quality of gastric residual alone for feed interruption in preterm infants\nOne trial with 87 preterm infants met the inclusion criteria for this comparison. The trial included infants with 1500 g to 2000 g birth weight.\nUsing two different criteria of gastric residual for feed interruption:\n- may result in little or no difference in the incidence of NEC (RR 5.35, 95% CI 0.26 to 108.27; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence);\n- may result in little or no difference in time to establish full enteral feeds (MD -0.10 days, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.71; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence);\n- may result in little or no difference in time to regain birth weight (MD 1.00 days, 95% CI -0.37 to 2.37; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence);\n- may result in little or no difference in number of TPN days (MD 0.80 days, 95% CI -0.78 to 2.38; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence);\n- may result in little or no difference in the risk of invasive infection (RR 5.35, 95% CI 0.26 to 108.27; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence);\n- may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality before hospital discharge (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.67; 87 participants; low-certainty evidence).\n- we are uncertain about the effect of using two different criteria of gastric residual on the risk of feed interruption episodes (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.67; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-certainty evidence suggests routine monitoring of gastric residual has little or no effect on the incidence of NEC. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests monitoring gastric residual probably increases the time to establish full enteral feeds, the number of TPN days and the risk of invasive infection. Low-certainty evidence suggests monitoring gastric residual may increase the time to regain birth weight and the number of feed interruption episodes, and may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality before hospital discharge. Further RCTs are warranted to assess the effect on long-term growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We are moderately confident about the evidence on the effect of monitoring stomach aspirates on outcomes such as necrotising enterocolitis, risk of infections, time taken to reach full feeds, and duration of parenteral nutrition."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7267
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHealthcare workers are at risk of acquiring viral diseases such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV through exposure to contaminated blood and body fluids at work. Most often infection occurs when a healthcare worker inadvertently punctures the skin of their hand with a sharp implement that has been used in the treatment of an infected patient, thus bringing the patient's blood into contact with their own. Such occurrences are commonly known as percutaneous exposure incidents.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of extra gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents among healthcare workers versus no intervention or alternative interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC, CISDOC, PsycINFO and LILACS until 26 June 2013.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) with healthcare workers as the majority of participants, extra gloves or special types of gloves as the intervention, and exposure to blood or bodily fluids as the outcome.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed meta-analyses for seven different comparisons.\nMain results\nWe found 34 RCTs that included 6890 person-operations as participating units and reported on 46 intervention-control group comparisons. We grouped interventions as follows: increased layers of standard gloves, gloves manufactured with special protective materials or thicker gloves, and gloves with puncture indicator systems. Indicator gloves show a coloured spot when they are perforated. Participants were surgeons in all studies and they used at least one pair of standard gloves as the control intervention. Twenty-seven studies also included other surgical staff (e.g. nurses). All but one study used perforations in gloves as an indication of exposure. The median control group rate was 18.5 perforations per 100 person-operations. Seven studies reported blood stains on the skin and two studies reported self reported needlestick injuries. Six studies reported dexterity as visual analogue scale scores for the comparison double versus single gloves, 13 studies reported outer glove perforations. We judged the included studies to have a moderate to high risk of bias.\nWe found moderate-quality evidence that double gloves compared to single gloves reduce the risk of glove perforation (rate ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.37) and the risk of blood stains on the skin (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70). Two studies with a high risk of bias also reported the effect of double compared to single gloves on needlestick injuries (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.62).\nWe found low-quality evidence in one small study that the use of three gloves compared to two gloves reduces the risk of perforation further (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.52). There was similar low-quality evidence that the use of one fabric glove over one normal glove reduces perforations compared to two normal gloves (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.93). There was moderate-quality evidence that this effect was similar for the use of one special material glove between two normal material gloves. Thicker gloves did not perform better than thinner gloves.\nThere was moderate to low-quality evidence in two studies that an indicator system does not reduce the total number of perforations during an operation even though it reduces the number of perforations per glove used.\nThere was moderate-quality evidence that double gloves have a similar number of outer glove perforations as single gloves, indicating that there is no loss of dexterity with double gloves (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.31).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that double gloving compared to single gloving during surgery reduces perforations and blood stains on the skin, indicating a decrease in percutaneous exposure incidents. There is low-quality evidence that triple gloving and the use of special gloves can further reduce the risk of glove perforations compared to double gloving with normal material gloves. The preventive effect of double gloves on percutaneous exposure incidents in surgery does not need further research. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of special material gloves and triple gloves, and of gloves in other occupational groups.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Three pairs of gloves compared to two pairs of ordinary gloves\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "One low-quality study showed that triple gloves compared to double gloves can further reduce perforations."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7268
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with diabetes are at high risk for developing foot ulcers, which often become infected. These wounds, especially when infected, cause substantial morbidity. Wound treatments should aim to alleviate symptoms, promote healing, and avoid adverse outcomes, especially lower extremity amputation. Topical antimicrobial therapy has been used on diabetic foot ulcers, either as a treatment for clinically infected wounds, or to prevent infection in clinically uninfected wounds.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of treatment with topical antimicrobial agents on: the resolution of signs and symptoms of infection; the healing of infected diabetic foot ulcers; and preventing infection and improving healing in clinically uninfected diabetic foot ulcers.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus in August 2016. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and checked reference lists to identify additional studies. We used no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials conducted in any setting (inpatient or outpatient) that evaluated topical treatment with any type of solid or liquid (e.g., cream, gel, ointment) antimicrobial agent, including antiseptics, antibiotics, and antimicrobial dressings, in people with diabetes mellitus who were diagnosed with an ulcer or open wound of the foot, whether clinically infected or uninfected.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction. Initial disagreements were resolved by discussion, or by including a third review author when necessary.\nMain results\nWe found 22 trials that met our inclusion criteria with a total of over 2310 participants (one study did not report number of participants). The included studies mostly had small numbers of participants (from 4 to 317) and relatively short follow-up periods (4 to 24 weeks). At baseline, six trials included only people with ulcers that were clinically infected; one trial included people with both infected and uninfected ulcers; two trials included people with non-infected ulcers; and the remaining 13 studies did not report infection status.\nIncluded studies employed various topical antimicrobial treatments, including antimicrobial dressings (e.g. silver, iodides), super-oxidised aqueous solutions, zinc hyaluronate, silver sulphadiazine, tretinoin, pexiganan cream, and chloramine. We performed the following five comparisons based on the included studies:\nAntimicrobial dressings compared with non-antimicrobial dressings: Pooled data from five trials with a total of 945 participants suggest (based on the average treatment effect from a random-effects model) that more wounds may heal when treated with an antimicrobial dressing than with a non-antimicrobial dressing: risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 1.45. These results correspond to an additional 119 healing events in the antimicrobial-dressing arm per 1000 participants (95% CI 51 to 191 more). We consider this low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice due to risk of bias). The evidence on adverse events or other outcomes was uncertain (very low-certainty evidence, frequently downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision).\nAntimicrobial topical treatments (non dressings) compared with non-antimicrobial topical treatments (non dressings): There were four trials with a total of 132 participants in this comparison that contributed variously to the estimates of outcome data. Evidence was generally of low or very low certainty, and the 95% CIs spanned benefit and harm: proportion of wounds healed RR 2.82 (95% CI 0.56 to 14.23; 112 participants; 3 trials; very low-certainty evidence); achieving resolution of infection RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.54 to 2.51; 40 participants; 1 trial; low-certainty evidence); undergoing surgical resection RR 1.67 (95% CI 0.47 to 5.90; 40 participants; 1 trial; low-certainty evidence); and sustaining an adverse event (no events in either arm; 81 participants; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence).\nComparison of different topical antimicrobial treatments: We included eight studies with a total of 250 participants, but all of the comparisons were different and no data could be appropriately pooled. Reported outcome data were limited and we are uncertain about the relative effects of antimicrobial topical agents for each of our review outcomes for this comparison, that is wound healing, resolution of infection, surgical resection, and adverse events (all very low-certainty evidence).\nTopical antimicrobials compared with systemic antibiotics : We included four studies with a total of 937 participants. These studies reported no wound-healing data, and the evidence was uncertain for the relative effects on resolution of infection in infected ulcers and surgical resection (very low certainty). On average, there is probably little difference in the risk of adverse events between the compared topical antimicrobial and systemic antibiotics treatments: RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.06; moderate-certainty evidence - downgraded once for inconsistency).\nTopical antimicrobial agents compared with growth factor: We included one study with 40 participants. The only review-relevant outcome reported was number of ulcers healed, and these data were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe randomised controlled trial data on the effectiveness and safety of topical antimicrobial treatments for diabetic foot ulcers is limited by the availability of relatively few, mostly small, and often poorly designed trials. Based on our systematic review and analysis of the literature, we suggest that: 1) use of an antimicrobial dressing instead of a non-antimicrobial dressing may increase the number of diabetic foot ulcers healed over a medium-term follow-up period (low-certainty evidence); and 2) there is probably little difference in the risk of adverse events related to treatment between systemic antibiotics and topical antimicrobial treatments based on the available studies (moderate-certainty evidence). For each of the other outcomes we examined there were either no reported data or the available data left us uncertain as to whether or not there were any differences between the compared treatments. Given the high, and increasing, frequency of diabetic foot wounds, we encourage investigators to undertake properly designed randomised controlled trials in this area to evaluate the effects of topical antimicrobial treatments for both the prevention and the treatment of infection in these wounds and ultimately the effects on wound healing.\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": "Overall, the certainty of the evidence provided by the trials was too low for us to be certain of the benefits and harms of topical antimicrobial treatments for treating foot ulcers in people with diabetes. More, larger, and better-designed randomised controlled trials should be carried out in this area."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7269
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEczema is a common skin condition. Although topical corticosteroids have been a first-line treatment for eczema for decades, there are uncertainties over their optimal use.\nObjectives\nTo establish the effectiveness and safety of different ways of using topical corticosteroids for treating eczema.\nSearch methods\nWe searched databases to January 2021 (Cochrane Skin Specialised Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; GREAT) and five clinical trials registers. We checked bibliographies from included trials to identify further trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials in adults and children with eczema that compared at least two strategies of topical corticosteroid use. We excluded placebo comparisons, other than for trials that evaluated proactive versus reactive treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods, with GRADE certainty of evidence for key findings. Primary outcomes were changes in clinician-reported signs and relevant local adverse events. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported symptoms and relevant systemic adverse events. For local adverse events, we prioritised abnormal skin thinning as a key area of concern for healthcare professionals and patients.\nMain results\nWe included 104 trials (8443 participants). Most trials were conducted in high-income countries (81/104), most likely in outpatient or other hospital settings. We judged only one trial to be low risk of bias across all domains. Fifty-five trials had high risk of bias in at least one domain, mostly due to lack of blinding or missing outcome data.\nStronger-potency versus weaker-potency topical corticosteroids\nSixty-three trials compared different potencies of topical corticosteroids: 12 moderate versus mild, 22 potent versus mild, 25 potent versus moderate, and 6 very potent versus potent. Trials were usually in children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, lasting one to five weeks. The most reported outcome was Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) of clinician-reported signs of eczema.\nWe pooled four trials that compared moderate- versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (420 participants). Moderate-potency topical corticosteroids probably result in more participants achieving treatment success, defined as cleared or marked improvement on IGA (52% versus 34%; odds ratio (OR) 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.04; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled nine trials that compared potent versus mild-potency topical corticosteroids (392 participants). Potent topical corticosteroids probably result in a large increase in number achieving treatment success (70% versus 39%; OR 3.71, 95% CI 2.04 to 6.72; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled 15 trials that compared potent versus moderate-potency topical corticosteroids (1053 participants). There was insufficient evidence of a benefit of potent topical corticosteroids compared to moderate topical corticosteroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). We pooled three trials that compared very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids (216 participants). The evidence is uncertain with a wide confidence interval (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence).\nTwice daily or more versus once daily application\nWe pooled 15 of 25 trials in this comparison (1821 participants, all reported IGA). The trials usually assessed adults and children with moderate or severe eczema, where specified, using potent topical corticosteroids, lasting two to six weeks.\nApplying potent topical corticosteroids only once a day probably does not decrease the number achieving treatment success compared to twice daily application (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.38; 15 trials, 1821 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nLocal adverse events\nWithin the trials that tested 'treating eczema flare-up' strategies, we identified only 26 cases of abnormal skin thinning from 2266 participants (1% across 22 trials). Most cases were from the use of higher-potency topical corticosteroids (16 with very potent, 6 with potent, 2 with moderate and 2 with mild). We assessed this evidence as low certainty, except for very potent versus potent topical corticosteroids, which was very low-certainty evidence.\nLonger versus shorter-term duration of application for induction of remission\nNo trials were identified.\nTwice weekly application (weekend, or ‘proactive therapy') to prevent relapse (flare-ups) versus no topical corticosteroids/reactive application\nNine trials assessed this comparison, generally lasting 16 to 20 weeks. We pooled seven trials that compared weekend (proactive) topical corticosteroids therapy versus no topical corticosteroids (1179 participants, children and adults with a range of eczema severities, though mainly moderate or severe).\nWeekend (proactive) therapy probably results in a large decrease in likelihood of a relapse from 58% to 25% (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.57; 7 trials, 1149 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nLocal adverse events\nWe did not identify any cases of abnormal skin thinning in seven trials that assessed skin thinning (1050 participants) at the end of treatment. We assessed this evidence as low certainty.\nOther comparisons\nOther comparisons included newer versus older preparations of topical corticosteroids (15 trials), cream versus ointment (7 trials), topical corticosteroids with wet wrap versus no wet wrap (6 trials), number of days per week applied (4 trials), different concentrations of the same topical corticosteroids (2 trials), time of day applied (2 trials), topical corticosteroids alternating with topical calcineurin inhibitors versus topical corticosteroids alone (1 trial), application to wet versus dry skin (1 trial) and application before versus after emollient (1 trial). No trials compared branded versus generic topical corticosteroids and time between application of emollient and topical corticosteroids.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPotent and moderate topical corticosteroids are probably more effective than mild topical corticosteroids, primarily in moderate or severe eczema; however, there is uncertain evidence to support any advantage of very potent over potent topical corticosteroids. Effectiveness is similar between once daily and twice daily (or more) frequent use of potent topical corticosteroids to treat eczema flare-ups, and topical corticosteroids weekend (proactive) therapy is probably better than no topical corticosteroids/reactive use to prevent eczema relapse (flare-ups). Adverse events were not well reported and came largely from low- or very low-certainty, short-term trials. In trials that reported abnormal skin thinning, frequency was low overall and increased with increasing potency. We found no trials on the optimum duration of treatment of a flare, branded versus generic topical corticosteroids, and time to leave between application of topical corticosteroids and emollient. There is a need for longer-term trials, in people with mild eczema.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Steroid creams can be used in different ways to treat eczema, and people often feel confused about which ones to use, and how often and how best to use them. We wanted to investigate the effectiveness of different ways (strategies) of using steroid cream and whether they cause unwanted effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7270
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and IOC.\nObjectives\nTo determine and compare the accuracy of ERCP and IOC for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov to September 2012. To identify additional studies, we searched the references of included studies and systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for ERCP or IOC. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct, or symptom-free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones; with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion independently.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently collected data from each study. We used the bivariate model to summarise the sensitivity and specificity of the tests.\nMain results\nWe identified five studies including 318 participants (180 participants with and 138 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and five studies including 654 participants (125 participants with and 529 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of IOC. Most studies included people with symptoms (participants with jaundice or pancreatitis) suspected of having common bile duct stones based on blood tests, ultrasound, or both, prior to the performance of ERCP or IOC. Most studies included participants who had not previously undergone removal of the gallbladder (cholecystectomy). None of the included studies was of high methodological quality as evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool (quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies). The sensitivities of ERCP ranged between 0.67 and 0.94 and the specificities ranged between 0.92 and 1.00. For ERCP, the summary sensitivity was 0.83 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.90) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00). The sensitivities of IOC ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.96 and 1.00. For IOC, the summary sensitivity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00). For ERCP, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35 estimated from the included studies (i.e., 35% of people suspected of having common bile duct stones were confirmed to have gallstones by the reference standard), the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) and negative test results was 0.09 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.14). For IOC, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35, the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.98 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.00) and negative test results was 0.01 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.10). There was weak evidence of a difference in sensitivity (P value = 0.05) with IOC showing higher sensitivity than ERCP. There was no evidence of a difference in specificity (P value = 0.7) with both tests having similar specificity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough the sensitivity of IOC appeared to be better than that of ERCP, this finding may be unreliable because none of the studies compared both tests in the same study populations and most of the studies were methodologically flawed. It appears that both tests were fairly accurate in guiding further invasive treatment as most people diagnosed with common bile duct stones by these tests had common bile duct stones. Some people may have common bile duct stones in spite of having a negative ERCP or IOC result. Such people may have to be re-tested if the clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones is very high because of their symptoms or persistently abnormal liver function tests. However, the results should be interpreted with caution given the limited quantity and quality of the evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We identified five studies including 318 participants that reported the diagnostic test accuracy of ERCP and five studies including 654 participants that reported the diagnostic test accuracy of IOC. Most studies included people with symptoms (participants with jaundice or pancreatitis) who were suspected of having CBD stones based on blood tests, ultrasound (use of sound waves higher than audible range to differentiate tissues based on how they reflect the sound waves), or both, prior to the having ERCP or IOC. Most studies included participants who had not previously undergone cholecystectomy."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7271
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThere remains uncertainty about the optimum timing of antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation in HIV-positive people with cryptococcal meningitis. This uncertainty is the result of conflicting data on the mortality risk and occurrence of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) when ART is initiated less than four weeks after cryptococcal meningitis treatment is commenced.\nObjectives\nTo compare the outcomes of early initiation of ART (less than four weeks after starting antifungal treatment) versus delayed initiation of ART (four weeks or more after starting antifungal treatment) in HIV-positive people with concurrent cryptococcal meningitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for trials published between 1 January 1980 and 7 August 2017. We additionally searched international trial registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and conference abstracts from the International AIDS Society (IAS) and the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) for ongoing or unpublished studies between 2015 and 2017. We reviewed reference lists of included studies to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared early versus delayed ART initiation in HIV-positive people with cryptococcal meningitis. Children, adults, and adolescents from any setting were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria and extracted data. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We presented time-to-death data as hazard ratios with 95% CIs. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nFour trials including 294 adult participants met the inclusion criteria of this review. Participants were predominantly from low- and middle-income countries. Two trials treated cryptococcal meningitis with amphotericin B and fluconazole; a third trial used fluconazole monotherapy; and the fourth trial did not specify the antifungal used.\nEarly ART initiation may increase all-cause mortality compared to delayed ART initiation (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.97; 294 participants, 4 trials; low-certainty evidence). Early ART initiation may reduce relapse of cryptococcal meningitis compared to delayed ART initiation (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.04; 205 participants, 2 trials, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether early ART initiation increases or reduces cryptococcal IRIS events compared to delayed ART initiation (RR 3.56, 95% CI 0.51 to 25.02; 205 participants, 2 trials; I2 = 54%; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if early ART initiation increases or reduces virological suppression at six months compared to delayed ART initiation (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.22; 205 participants, 2 trials; I2 statistic = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).\nWe were unable to pool results related to rate of fungal clearance for the two trials that reported this outcome; individual trial results indicated that there was no difference in cerebrospinal fluid fungal clearance between trial arms. Similarly, we were unable to pool results on adverse events for the trials reporting on this outcome; individual trial results indicated no difference in the occurrence of grade 3 to 5 adverse events between trial arms.\nThree of the four included trials had an overall low or unclear risk of bias related to the primary outcome of all-cause mortality. However, we assessed one trial as at high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting and other bias. This, in addition to the few clinical events and imprecision of effect estimates, led to downgrading of the evidence to low or very low certainty.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review are relevant to HIV-positive adults with cryptococcal meningitis in low- and middle-income countries. These data suggest a higher risk of mortality among people who initiate ART within four weeks of cryptococcal meningitis diagnosis. However, it is unclear if this higher mortality risk is related to cryptococcal meningitis-IRIS.\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": "Initiating ART within four weeks of cryptococcal meningitis diagnosis may result in more deaths than initiating ART after four weeks. However, initiating ART early may result in a reduction in relapses of cryptococcal meningitis after adequate treatment. There was insufficient evidence to answer questions related to other complications."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7272
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMost people who are newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have advanced disease. For these people, survival is determined by various patient- and tumor-related factors, of which the performance status (PS) is the most important prognostic factor. People with PS 0 or 1 are usually treated with systemic therapies, whereas people with PS 3 or 4 most often receive supportive care. However, treatment for people with PS 2 without a targetable mutation remains unclear. Historically, people with a PS 2 cancer are frequently excluded from (important) clinical trials because of poorer outcomes and increased toxicity. We aim to address this knowledge gap, as this group of people represents a significant proportion (20% to 30%) of the total population with newly diagnosed lung cancer.\nObjectives\nTo identify the best first-line therapy for advanced lung cancer in people with performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 17 June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different chemotherapy (with or without angiogenesis inhibitor) or immunotherapy regimens, specifically designed for people with PS 2 only or studies including a subgroup of these people.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. overall survival (OS), 2. health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and 3. toxicity/adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. tumor response rate, 5. progression-free survival, and 6. survival rates at six and 12 months' treatment. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 22 trials in this review and identified one ongoing trial. Twenty studies compared chemotherapy with different regimens, of which 11 compared non-platinum therapy (monotherapy or doublet) versus platinum doublet. We found no studies comparing best supportive care with chemotherapy and only two abstracts analyzing chemotherapy versus immunotherapy.\nWe found that platinum doublet therapy showed superior OS compared to non-platinum therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.78; 7 trials, 697 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in six-month survival rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.41; 6 trials, 632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), whereas 12-month survival rates were improved for treatment with platinum doublet therapy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; 11 trials, 1567 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). PFS and tumor response rate were also better for people treated with platinum doublet therapy, with moderate-certainty evidence (PFS: HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77; 5 trials, 487 participants; tumor response rate: RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.05; 9 trials, 964 participants).\nWhen analyzing toxicity rates, we found that platinum doublet therapy increased grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicities, all with low-certainty evidence (anemia: RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.92; neutropenia: RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.82; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.73 to 9.06; all 8 trials, 935 participants).\nOnly four trials reported HRQoL data; however, the methodology was different per trial and we were unable to perform a meta-analysis.\nAlthough evidence is limited, there were no differences in 12-month survival rates or tumor response rates between carboplatin and cisplatin regimens. With an indirect comparison, carboplatin seemed to have better 12-month survival rates than cisplatin compared to non-platinum therapy.\nThe assessment of the efficacy of immunotherapy in people with PS 2 was limited. There might be a place for single-agent immunotherapy, but the data provided by the included studies did not encourage the use of double-agent immunotherapy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review showed that as a first-line treatment for people with PS 2 with advanced NSCLC, platinum doublet therapy seems to be preferred over non-platinum therapy, with a higher response rate, PFS, and OS. Although the risk for grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicity is higher, these events are often relatively mild and easy to treat. Since trials using checkpoint inhibitors in people with PS 2 are scarce, we identified an important knowledge gap regarding their role in people with advanced NSCLC and PS 2.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is non-small cell lung cancer?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Lung cancer is the most frequent cause of cancer-related death worldwide and NSCLC is the most common subtype. At the time of diagnosis, the disease has already spread in more than half of all cases. In the tumors of a minority of people diagnosed with NSCLC that has spread to other parts of the body specific mutations can be found, which are treated distinct from the majority of people without such mutations."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7273
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommends at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits for all pregnant women. Almost half of pregnant women worldwide, and especially in developing countries do not receive this amount of care. Poor attendance of ANC is associated with delivery of low birthweight babies and more neonatal deaths. ANC may include education on nutrition, potential problems with pregnancy or childbirth, child care and prevention or detection of disease during pregnancy.\nThis review focused on community-based interventions and health systems-related interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of health system and community interventions for improving coverage of antenatal care and other perinatal health outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (7 June 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials. Trials of any interventions to improve ANC coverage were eligible for inclusion. Trials were also eligible if they targeted specific and related outcomes, such as maternal or perinatal death, but also reported ANC coverage.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.\nMain results\nWe included 34 trials involving approximately 400,000 women. Some trials tested community-based interventions to improve uptake of antenatal care (media campaigns, education or financial incentives for pregnant women), while other trials looked at health systems interventions (home visits for pregnant women or equipment for clinics). Most trials took place in low- and middle-income countries, and 29 of the 34 trials used a cluster-randomised design. We assessed 30 of the 34 trials as of low or unclear overall risk of bias.\nComparison 1: One intervention versus no intervention\nWe found marginal improvements in ANC coverage of at least four visits (average odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.22; participants = 45,022; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 52%; high quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis with a more conservative intra-cluster correlation co-efficient (ICC) gave similar marginal results. Excluding one study at high risk of bias shifted the marginal pooled estimate towards no effect. There was no effect on pregnancy-related deaths (average OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.08; participants = 114,930; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), perinatal mortality (average OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; studies = 15; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 45%; moderate quality evidence) or low birthweight (average OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.06; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 5%; high quality evidence). Single interventions led to marginal improvements in the number of women who delivered in health facilities (average OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; high quality evidence), and in the proportion of women who had at least one ANC visit (average OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.79; studies = six; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.24; I² = 76%; moderate quality evidence). Results for ANC coverage (at least four and at least one visit) and for perinatal mortality had substantial statistical heterogeneity. Single interventions did not improve the proportion of women receiving tetanus protection (average OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; studies = 8; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 57%). No study reported onintermittent prophylactic treatment for malaria.\nComparison 2: Two or more interventions versus no intervention\nWe found no improvements in ANC coverage of four or more visits (average OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.21; participants = 7840; studies = six; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.10; I² = 48%; low quality evidence) or pregnancy-related deaths (average OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.26; participants = 13,756; studies = three; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). However, combined interventions led to improvements in ANC coverage of at least one visit (average OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.17; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), perinatal mortality (average OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.06; I² = 83%; moderate quality evidence) and low birthweight (average OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80; studies = two; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). Meta-analyses for both ANC coverage four or more visits and perinatal mortality had substantial statistical heterogeneity. Combined interventions improved the proportion of women who had tetanus protection (average OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.87; studies = 3; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 33%). No trial in this comparison reported on intermittent prophylactic treatment for malaria.\nComparison 3: Two interventions compared head to head. No trials found.\nComparison 4: One intervention versus a combination of interventions\nThere was no difference in ANC coverage (four or more visits and at least one visit), pregnancy-related deaths, deliveries in a health facility or perinatal mortality. No trials in this comparison reported on low birthweight orintermittent prophylactic treatment of malaria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nImplications for practice - Single interventions may improve ANC coverage (at least one visit and four or more visits) and deliveries in health facilities. Combined interventions may improve ANC coverage (at least one visit), reduce perinatal mortality and reduce the occurrence of low birthweight. The effects of the interventions are unrelated to whether they are community or health system interventions.\nImplications for research - More details should be provided in reporting numbers of events, group totals and the ICCs used to adjust for cluster effects. Outcomes should be reported uniformly so that they are comparable to commonly-used population indicators. We recommend further cluster-RCTs of pregnant women and women in their reproductive years, using combinations of interventions and looking at outcomes that are important to pregnant women, such as maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, alongside the explanatory outcomes along the pathway of care: ANC coverage, the services provided during ANC and deliveries in health facilities.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the issue?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The World Health Organization recommends at least four antenatal visits for all pregnant women. Almost half of pregnant women worldwide miss out on this level of care, and this is more problematic in low- and middle-income countries."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7274
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nArthritis of the knee is a common problem causing pain and disability. If severe, knee arthritis can be surgically managed with a total knee arthroplasty. Rehabilitation following knee arthroplasty often includes continuous passive motion (CPM). CPM is applied by a machine that passively and repeatedly moves the knee through a specified range of motion (ROM). It is believed that CPM increases recovery of knee ROM and has other therapeutic benefits. However, it is not clear whether CPM is effective.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of CPM and standard postoperative care versus similar postoperative care, with or without additional knee exercises, in people with knee arthroplasty. This review is an update of a 2003 and 2010 version of the same review.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 24 January 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to 24 January 2013), CINAHL (January 1982 to 24 January 2013), AMED (January 1985 to 24 January 2013) and PEDro (to 24 January 2013).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials in which the experimental group received CPM, and both the experimental and control groups received similar postoperative care and therapy following total knee arthroplasty in people with arthritis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes of interest were active knee flexion ROM, pain, quality of life, function, participants' global assessment of treatment effectiveness, incidence of manipulation under anaesthesia and adverse events. The secondary outcomes were passive knee flexion ROM, active knee extension ROM, passive knee extension ROM, length of hospital stay, swelling and quadriceps strength. We estimated effects for continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences (SMD), and effects for dichotomous data as risk ratios; all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). If appropriate, we performed meta-analyses using random-effects models.\nMain results\nWe identified 684 papers from the electronic searches after removal of duplicates and retrieved the full reports of 62 potentially eligible trials. Twenty-four randomised controlled trials of 1445 participants met the inclusion criteria; four of these trials were new to this update.\nThere was moderate-quality evidence to indicate that CPM does not have clinically important short-term effects on active knee flexion ROM: mean knee flexion was 78 degrees in the control group, CPM increased active knee flexion ROM by 2 degrees (95% CI 0 to 5) or absolute improvement of 2% (95% CI 0% to 4%). The medium- and long-term effects are similar although the quality of evidence is lower.\nThere was low-quality evidence to indicate that CPM does not have clinically important short-term effects on pain: mean pain was 3 points in the control group, CPM reduced pain by 0.4 points on a 10-point scale (95% CI -0.8 to 0.1) or absolute reduction of -4% (95% CI -8% to 1%).\nThere was moderate-quality evidence to indicate that CPM does not have clinically important medium-term effects on function: mean function in the control group was 56 points, CPM decreased function by 1.6 points (95% CI -6.1 to 2.0) on a 100-point scale or absolute reduction of -2% (95% CI -5% to 2%). The SMD was -0.1 standard deviations (SD) (95% CI -0.3 to 0.1).\nThere was moderate-quality evidence to indicate that CPM does not have clinically important medium-term effects on quality of life: mean quality of life was 40 points in the control group, CPM improved quality of life by 1 point on a 100-point scale (95% CI -3 to 4) or absolute improvement of 1% (95% CI -3% to 4%).\nThere was very low-quality evidence to indicate that CPM reduces the risk of manipulation under anaesthesia; risk of manipulation in the control group was 7.2%, risk of manipulation in the experimental group was 1.6%, CPM decreased the risk of manipulation by 25 fewer manipulations per 1000 (95% CI 9 to 64) or absolute risk reduction of -4% (95% CI -8% to 0%). The risk ratio was 0.3 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.9).\nThere was low-quality evidence to indicate that CPM reduces the risk of adverse events; risk of adverse events in the control group was 16.3%, risk of adverse events in the experimental group was 15%, CPM decreased the risk of adverse event by 13 fewer adverse events per 1000 or absolute risk reduction of -1% (95% CI -5% to 3%). The risk ratio was 0.9 (95% CI 0.6 to 1.3). The estimates for risk of manipulation and adverse events are very imprecise and the estimate for the risk of adverse events does not distinguish between a clinically important increase and decrease in risk.\nThere was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of CPM on participants' global assessment of treatment effectiveness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCPM does not have clinically important effects on active knee flexion ROM, pain, function or quality of life to justify its routine use. It may reduce the risk of manipulation under anaesthesia and risk of developing adverse events although the quality of evidence supporting these findings are very low and low, respectively. The effects of CPM on other outcomes are unclear.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Adverse events\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "People who had CPM had a decrease in the risk of developing adverse events equivalent to an average of 13 fewer adverse events per 1000 patients (1% absolute risk reduction, 5% risk reduction to 3% risk increase).\n- People who had CPM had on average a 15% risk of developing adverse events.\n- People who did not have CPM had on average a 16.3% risk of developing adverse events."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7275
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHeparin is an anticoagulant medication that is usually injected subcutaneously. Subcutaneous administration of heparin may result in complications such as bruising, haematoma, and pain at the injection site. One of the factors that may affect pain, haematoma, and bruising is injection speed. Several studies have been carried out to determine if speed of injection affects the amount of pain and bruising where the injection is given; however, the results of these studies have differed, and study authors have not reached a clear final conclusion. This is the second update of a review first published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of duration (speed) of subcutaneous heparin injection on pain and bruising at the injection site in people admitted to hospitals or clinics who require treatment with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). We also looked at haematoma at the injection site.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 June 2020. We undertook reference checking of included studies to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of different durations of subcutaneous injection of heparin on pain, bruising, and haematoma at the injection site.\nData collection and analysis\nFor this update, two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data via Covidence software and assessed methodological quality using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes of interest were pain intensity at injection site and size and incidence of bruising. The secondary outcomes of interest were size and incidence of haematoma at injection site. We calculated the odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nWe identified one new study for this update, resulting in a total of five included studies with 503 participants who received subcutaneous injections of LMWH into the abdomen. Given the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind participants and caregivers (personnel) in any of the included studies. Two studies described blinding of outcome assessors. Overall, the methodological quality of included studies was moderate. The duration of the fast injection was 10 seconds, and the duration of the slow injection was 30 seconds in all included studies.\nFour studies reported site pain intensity after each injection at different time points. Two studies assessed site pain intensity immediately after each injection; meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference in site pain intensity immediately after slow injection when compared to fast injection (MD −1.52, 95% CI −3.56 to 0.53; 140 participants; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis of three studies indicated that site pain intensity may be slightly reduced 48 hours after the slow heparin injection compared to fast injection (MD −1.60, 95% CI −2.69 to −0.51; 103 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nFive studies assessed bruise size at 48 hours, and two studies assessed bruise size at 60 hours. Meta-analysis showed there may be a reduction in bruise size 48 hours (SMD −0.54, 95% CI −1.05 to −0.02; 503 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and 60 hours (SMD −0.49, 95% CI −0.93 to −0.06; 84 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) after slow injection compared to fast injection. There was no evidence of a difference in bruise size 72 hours after slow injection compared to fast injection (SMD −0.27, 95% CI −0.61 to 0.06; 140 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence).\nThree studies evaluated incidence of bruising and showed there may be a reduction in bruise incidence 48 hours (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.60; 444 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 60 hours (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.65; 84 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) after slow injection compared to fast injection. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to risk of bias concerns, imprecision, and inconsistency.\nNone of the included studies measured size or incidence of haematoma.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAdministering medication safely and enhancing patient comfort are the main aims of clinical nurses. In this review, we identified five RCTs that evaluated the effect of subcutaneous heparin injection duration on pain intensity, bruise size and incidence. We found that pain may be slightly reduced 48 hours after slow injection. Similarly, there may be a reduction in bruise size and incidence after slow injection compared to fast injection 48 and 60 hours postinjection. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low due to risk of bias concerns, imprecision, and inconsistency. Accordingly, new trials with a more robust design, more participants, and a focus on different injection speeds will be useful in strengthening the certainty of the available evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We graded the certainty of the evidence as low or very low because we found only a small number of published studies that reported on our review question, and the studies were small and had contradicting results. The fact that participants knew whether they had received a fast or a slow injection may also have affected the results because this knowledge may have led them to use different techniques (i.e. applying cold, heat, or massage) to relieve the pain and bruising based on the intervention received."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7276
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGlutamergic system dysfunction has been implicated in the pathophysiology of bipolar depression. This is an update of the 2015 Cochrane Review for the use of glutamate receptor modulators for depression in bipolar disorder.\nObjectives\n1. To assess the effects of ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in alleviating the acute symptoms of depression in people with bipolar disorder.\n2. To review the acceptability of ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in people with bipolar disorder who are experiencing depressive symptoms.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO all years to July 2020. We did not apply any restrictions to date, language or publication status.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs comparing ketamine or other glutamate receptor modulators with other active psychotropic drugs or saline placebo in adults with bipolar depression.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Primary outcomes were response rate and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included remission rate, depression severity change scores, suicidality, cognition, quality of life, and dropout rate. The GRADE framework was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nTen studies (647 participants) were included in this review (an additional five studies compared to the 2015 review). There were no additional studies added to the comparisons identified in the 2015 Cochrane review on ketamine, memantine and cytidine versus placebo. However, three new comparisons were found: ketamine versus midazolam, N-acetylcysteine versus placebo, and riluzole versus placebo. The glutamate receptor modulators studied were ketamine (three trials), memantine (two), cytidine (one), N-acetylcysteine (three), and riluzole (one). Eight of these studies were placebo-controlled and two-armed. In seven trials the glutamate receptor modulators had been used as add-on drugs to mood stabilisers. Only one trial compared ketamine with an active comparator, midazolam. The treatment period ranged from a single intravenous administration (all ketamine studies), to repeated administration for riluzole, memantine, cytidine, and N-acetylcysteine (with a follow-up of eight weeks, 8 to 12 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 to 20 weeks, respectively). Six of the studies included sites in the USA, one in Taiwan, one in Denmark, one in Australia, and in one study the location was unclear. All participants had a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder and were experiencing an acute bipolar depressive episode, diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition (IV) or fourth edition text revision (IV-TR).\nAmong all glutamate receptor modulators included in this review, only ketamine appeared to be more efficacious than placebo 24 hours after infusion for response rate (odds ratio (OR) 11.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 107.74; P = 0.03; participants = 33; studies = 2; I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence). Ketamine seemed to be more effective in reducing depression rating scale scores (MD -11.81, 95% CI -20.01 to -3.61; P = 0.005; participants = 32; studies = 2; I2 = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of ketamine's efficacy in producing remission over placebo at 24 hours (OR 5.16, 95% CI 0.51 to 52.30; P = 0.72; participants = 33; studies = 2; I2 = 0%, very low-certainty evidence).\nEvidence on response, remission or depression rating scale scores between ketamine and midazolam was uncertain at 24 hours due to very low-certainty evidence (OR 3.20, 95% CI 0.23 to 45.19). In the one trial assessing ketamine and midazolam, there were no dropouts due to adverse effects or for any reason (very low-certainty evidence).\nPlacebo may have been more effective than N-acetylcysteine in reducing depression rating scale scores at three months, although this was based on very low-certainty evidence (MD 1.28, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.31; participants = 58; studies = 2). Very uncertain evidence found no difference in response at three months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.14; participants = 69; studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for remission or acceptability.\nExtremely limited data were available for riluzole vs placebo, finding only very-low certainty evidence of no difference in dropout rates (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 12.84; P = 0.46; participants = 19; studies = 1; I2 = 0%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is difficult to draw reliable conclusions from this review due to the certainty of the evidence being low to very low, and the relatively small amount of data usable for analysis in bipolar disorder, which is considerably less than the information available for unipolar depression. Nevertheless, we found uncertain evidence in favour of a single intravenous dose of ketamine (as add-on therapy to mood stabilisers) over placebo in terms of response rate up to 24 hours, however ketamine did not show any better efficacy for remission in bipolar depression. Even though ketamine has the potential to have a rapid and transient antidepressant effect, the efficacy of a single intravenous dose may be limited. We did not find conclusive evidence on adverse events with ketamine, and there was insufficient evidence to draw meaningful conclusions for the remaining glutamate receptor modulators.\nHowever, ketamine's psychotomimetic effects (such as delusions or delirium) may have compromised study blinding in some studies, and so we cannot rule out the potential bias introduced by inadequate blinding procedures. To draw more robust conclusions, further methodologically sound RCTs (with adequate blinding) are needed to explore different modes of administration of ketamine, and to study different methods of sustaining antidepressant response, such as repeated administrations.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Who will be interested in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "- People with bipolar disorder, their friends and families.\n- General practitioners, psychiatrists, psychologists, and pharmacists.\n- Professionals working in adult mental health services."
}
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.