Datasets:

KenLuo
/

qls

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 24.7k rows

dataset stringclasses 1 value	id stringlengths 1 5	messages listlengths 2 2
query-laysum	7277	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOvarian cancer (OC) has the highest case fatality rate of all gynaecological cancers. Diagnostic delays are caused by non-specific symptoms. Existing systematic reviews have not comprehensively covered tests in current practice, not estimated accuracy separately in pre- and postmenopausal women, or used inappropriate meta-analytic methods.\nObjectives\nTo establish the accuracy of combinations of menopausal status, ultrasound scan (USS) and biomarkers for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in pre- and postmenopausal women and compare the accuracy of different test combinations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), five other databases and three trial registries from 1991 to 2015 and MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) from June 2015 to June 2019. We also searched conference proceedings from the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology, International Gynecologic Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Gynecologic Oncology, ZETOC and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Web of Knowledge). We searched reference lists of included studies and published systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating single tests or comparing two or more tests, randomised trials comparing two or more tests, and studies validating multivariable models for the diagnosis of OC investigating test combinations, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up in women with a pelvic mass (detected clinically or through USS) suspicious for OC.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using QUADAS-2. We used the bivariate hierarchical model to indirectly compare tests at commonly reported thresholds in pre- and postmenopausal women separately. We indirectly compared tests across all thresholds and estimated sensitivity at fixed specificities of 80% and 90% by fitting hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models in pre- and postmenopausal women separately.\nMain results\nWe included 59 studies (32,059 women, 9545 cases of OC). Five studies evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and USS findings (IOTA Logistic Regression Model 2 (LR2), four studies evaluated the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa model (ADNEX)); 19 studies evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status, USS findings and serum biomarker CA125 (Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI)); and 42 studies evaluated the accuracy of a combination of menopausal status and two serum biomarkers (CA125 and HE4) (Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA)). Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in participant, reference standard, and flow and timing domains. All studies were in hospital settings. Mean prevalence was 16% (RMI, ROMA), 22% (LR2) and 27% (ADNEX) in premenopausal women and 38% (RMI), 45% (ROMA), 52% (LR2) and 55% (ADNEX) in postmenopausal women. The prevalence of OC in the studies was considerably higher than would be expected in symptomatic women presenting in community-based settings, or in women referred from the community to hospital with a suspicion of OC. Studies were at high or unclear applicability because presenting features were not reported, or USS was performed by experienced ultrasonographers for RMI, LR2 and ADNEX.\nThe higher sensitivity and lower specificity observed in postmenopausal compared to premenopausal women across all index tests and at all thresholds may reflect highly selected patient cohorts in the included studies.\nIn premenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 13.1 (± 2), LR2 at a threshold to achieve a post-test probability of OC of 10% and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 77.4%, 95% CI 72.7% to 81.5%; LR2: 83.3%, 95% CI 74.7% to 89.5%; ADNEX: 95.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 97.8%) compared to RMI (57.2%, 95% CI 50.3% to 63.8%). The specificity of ROMA and ADNEX were lower in premenopausal women (ROMA: 84.3%, 95% CI 81.2% to 87.0%; ADNEX: 77.8%, 95% CI 67.4% to 85.5%) compared to RMI 92.5% (95% CI 90.3% to 94.2%). The specificity of LR2 was comparable to RMI (90.4%, 95% CI 84.6% to 94.1%).\nIn postmenopausal women, ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2), LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) demonstrated a higher sensitivity (ROMA: 90.3%, 95% CI 87.5% to 92.6%; LR2: 94.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 96.6%; ADNEX: 97.6%, 95% CI 95.6% to 98.7%) compared to RMI (78.4%, 95% CI 74.6% to 81.7%). Specificity of ROMA at a threshold of 27.7 (± 2) (81.5, 95% CI 76.5% to 85.5%) was comparable to RMI (85.4%, 95% CI 82.0% to 88.2%), whereas for LR2 (post-test probability 10%) and ADNEX (post-test probability 10%) specificity was lower (LR2: 60.6%, 95% CI 50.5% to 69.9%; ADNEX: 55.0%, 95% CI 42.8% to 66.6%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn specialist healthcare settings in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women, RMI has poor sensitivity. In premenopausal women, ROMA, LR2 and ADNEX offer better sensitivity (fewer missed cancers), but for ROMA and ADNEX this is off-set by a decrease in specificity and increase in false positives. In postmenopausal women, ROMA demonstrates a higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to RMI. ADNEX has the highest sensitivity in postmenopausal women, but reduced specificity. The prevalence of OC in included studies is representative of a highly selected referred population, rather than a population in whom referral is being considered. The comparative accuracy of tests observed here may not be transferable to non-specialist settings. Ultimately health systems need to balance accuracy and resource implications to identify the most suitable test.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What were the main results?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Premenopausal women\nThe sensitivities (proportion of women with OC correctly identified) of ROMA (77.4%), LR2 (83.3%) and ADNEX (95.5%) are higher than RMI (57.2%).\nThe specificities (proportion of women without OC correctly identified) of ROMA (84.3%) and ADNEX (77.8%) were lower than RMI (92.5%) and LR2 (90.4%).\nThe results indicate that if these tests were to be used in hospital settings in a group of 1000 premenopausal women, of whom 30 (3%) actually have OC:\n– for RMI 13 women, for ROMA 7 women, for LR2 5 women and for ADNEX 1 woman would have their cancer missed by the test (false-negative result);\n– for RMI 73 women, for ROMA 152 women, for LR2 93 women and for ADNEX 215 women would test positive when they do not have OC (false-positive result).\nPostmenopausal women\nThe sensitivities of ROMA (90.3%), LR2 (94.8%) and ADNEX (97.6%) are higher than RMI (78.4%).\nThe specificities of ROMA (81.5%) and RMI (85.4%) are higher than LR2 (60.6%) and ADNEX (55.0%).\nThe results of these studies indicate that if these tests were to be used in hospital settings in a group of 1000 postmenopausal women, of whom 30 (3%) actually have OC:\n– for RMI 6 women, for ROMA 3 women, for LR2 2 women and for ADNEX 1 woman would have their cancer missed by the test (false-negative result);\n– for RMI 142 women, for ROMA 179 women, for LR2 382 women and for ADNEX 437 women would test positive when they do not have OC (false-positive result)." } ]
query-laysum	7278	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDepression is a debilitating condition affecting more than 350 million people worldwide (WHO 2012) with a limited number of evidence-based treatments. Drug treatments may be inappropriate due to side effects and cost, and not everyone can use talking therapies.There is a need for evidence-based treatments that can be applied across cultures and with people who find it difficult to verbally articulate thoughts and feelings. Dance movement therapy (DMT) is used with people from a range of cultural and intellectual backgrounds, but effectiveness remains unclear.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effects of DMT for depression with or without standard care, compared to no treatment or standard care alone, psychological therapies, drug treatment, or other physical interventions. Also, to compare the effectiveness of different DMT approaches.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) and CINAHL were searched (to 2 Oct 2014) together with the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. The review authors also searched the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Dissertation Abstracts (to August 2013), handsearched bibliographies, contacted professional associations, educational programmes and dance therapy experts worldwide.\nSelection criteria\nInclusion criteria were: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) studying outcomes for people of any age with depression as defined by the trialist, with at least one group being DMT. DMT was defined as: participatory dance movement with clear psychotherapeutic intent, facilitated by an individual with a level of training that could be reasonably expected within the country in which the trial was conducted. For example, in the USA this would either be a trainee, or qualified and credentialed by the American Dance Therapy Association (ADTA). In the UK, the therapist would either be in training with, or accredited by, the Association for Dance Movement Psychotherapy (ADMP, UK). Similar professional bodies exist in Europe, but in some countries (e.g. China) where the profession is in development, a lower level of qualification would mirror the situation some decades previously in the USA or UK. Hence, the review authors accepted a relevant professional qualification (e.g. nursing or psychodynamic therapies) plus a clear description of the treatment that would indicate its adherence to published guidelines including Levy 1992, ADMP UK 2015, Meekums 2002, and Karkou 2006.\nData collection and analysis\nStudy methodological quality was evaluated and data were extracted independently by the first two review authors using a data extraction form, the third author acting as an arbitrator.\nMain results\nThree studies totalling 147 participants (107 adults and 40 adolescents) met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-four participants took part in DMT treatment, while 73 comprised the control groups. Two studies included male and female adults with depression. One of these studies included outpatient participants; the other study was conducted with inpatients at an urban hospital. The third study reported findings with female adolescents in a middle-school setting. All included studies collected continuous data using two different depression measures: the clinician-completed Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D); and the Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R) (self-rating scale).\nStatistical heterogeneity was identified between the three studies. There was no reliable effect of DMT on depression (SMD -0.67 95% CI -1.40 to 0.05; very low quality evidence). A planned subgroup analysis indicated a positive effect in adults, across two studies, 107 participants, but this failed to meet clinical significance (SMD -7.33 95% CI -9.92 to -4.73).\nOne adult study reported drop-out rates, found to be non-significant with an odds ratio of 1.82 [95% CI 0.35 to 9.45]; low quality evidence. One study measured social functioning, demonstrating a large positive effect (MD -6.80 95 % CI -11.44 to -2.16; very low quality evidence), but this result was imprecise. One study showed no effect in either direction for quality of life (0.30 95% CI -0.60 to 1.20; low quality evidence) or self esteem (1.70 95% CI -2.36 to 5.76; low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe low-quality evidence from three small trials with 147 participants does not allow any firm conclusions to be drawn regarding the effectiveness of DMT for depression. Larger trials of high methodological quality are needed to assess DMT for depression, with economic analyses and acceptability measures and for all age groups.\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": "Depression affects 350 million people worldwide, impacting on quality of life, work, relationships and physical health. Medication and talking therapies are not always suitable or available. Dance movement therapy (DMT) uses bodily movements to explore and express emotions with groups or individuals. This is the first review of the effectiveness of DMT for depression and will add to the evidence base regarding depression treatments." } ]
query-laysum	7279	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDespite improvements in medical care, the quality of life of adults and adolescents with congenital heart disease remains strongly affected by their condition, often leading to depression. Psychotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, and other talking therapies may be effective in treating depression in both adults and young adults with congenital heart disease. The aim of this review was to assess the effects of treatments, such as psychotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapies, and talking therapies for treating depression in this population.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects (both harms and benefits) of psychological interventions for reducing symptoms of depression in adolescents (aged 10 to 17 years) and adults with congenital heart disease. Psychological interventions include cognitive behavioural therapy, psychotherapy, or 'talking/counselling' therapy for depression.\nSearch methods\nWe updated searches from the 2013 Cochrane Review by searching CENTRAL, four other databases, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index to 7 March 2023, and two clinical trial registers to February 2021. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological interventions to no intervention in the congenital heart disease population, aged 10 years and older, with depression.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and independently assessed full-text reports for inclusion. Further information was sought from the authors if needed. Data were extracted in duplicate. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was a change in depression. Our secondary outcomes were: acceptability of treatment, quality of life, hospital re-admission, non-fatal cardiovascular events, cardiovascular behavioural risk factor, health economics, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for our primary outcome only.\nMain results\nWe identified three new RCTs (480 participants). Participants were adults with congenital heart disease. Included studies varied in intervention length (90 minutes to 3 months) and follow-up (3 to 12 months), with depression assessed post-intervention and at follow-up. Risk of bias assessment identified an overall low risk of bias for the main outcome of depression.\nPsychological interventions (talking/counselling therapy) may reduce depression more than usual care at both three-month (mean difference (MD) -1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.84 to -0.30; P = 0.006; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence), and 12-month follow-up (MD -1.02, 95% CI -1.92 to -0.13; P = 0.02; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 287 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThere was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the impact of psychological interventions on quality of life.\nNone of the included studies reported on our other outcomes of interest.\nDue to the low number of studies included, we did not undertake any subgroup analyses. One study awaits classification.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPsychological interventions may reduce depression in adults with congenital heart disease compared to usual care. However, the certainty of the evidence is low.\nFurther research is needed to establish the role of psychological interventions in this population, defining the optimal duration, method of administration, and number of sessions required to obtain the greatest benefit.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is important to do this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Sometimes, young adults and adults who are born with heart problems have depression. Besides anti-depressant medicine, treatments to help reduce the depression include different types of talking therapies (known as psychological therapy). The benefits of having treatment with talking therapy may include a reduction in depression and improved quality of life, but the treatment may not help relieve the depression." } ]
query-laysum	7280	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSudden cardiac death is a significant cause of mortality in both the US and globally. However, 5% to 15% of people with sudden cardiac death have no structural abnormalities, and most of these events are attributed to underlying cardiac ion channelopathies. Rates of cardiac ion channelopathy diagnosis are increasing. However, the optimal treatment for such people is poorly understood and current guidelines rely primarily on expert opinion.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effect of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) with antiarrhythmic drugs or usual care in reducing the risk of all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, and adverse events in people with cardiac ion channelopathies.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015, Issue 6), EMBASE, MEDLINE, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (CPCI-S), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) in July 2015. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials of people aged 18 years and older with ion channelopathies, including congenital long QT syndrome, congenital short QT syndrome, Brugada syndrome, or catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. Participants must have been randomized to ICD implantation and compared to antiarrhythmic drug therapy or usual care.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted the data. We included all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, and adverse events for our primary outcome analyses and non-fatal cardiovascular events, rates of inappropriate ICD firing, quality of life, and cost for our secondary outcome analyses. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, both for independent and pooled study analyses.\nMain results\nFrom the 468 references identified after removing duplicates, we found two trials comprising 86 participants that met our inclusion criteria. Both trials included participants with Brugada syndrome who were randomized to ICD versus β-blocker therapy for secondary prevention for sudden cardiac death. Both studies were small, were performed by the same investigators, and exhibited a high risk of bias across multiple domains. In the group randomized to ICD therapy, there was a nine-fold lower risk of mortality compared with people randomized to medical therapy (0% with ICD versus 18% with medical therapy; RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.83; 2 trials, 86 participants). There was low quality evidence of a difference in the rates of combined fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, and the results were imprecise (26% with ICD versus 18% with medical therapy; RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.34; 2 trials, 86 participants). The rates of adverse events were higher in the ICD group, but these results were imprecise (28% with ICD versus 10% with medical therapy; RR 2.44, 95% CI 0.92 to 6.44; 2 trials, 86 participants). For secondary outcomes, the risk of non-fatal cardiovascular events was higher in the ICD group, but these results were imprecise and were driven entirely by appropriate ICD-termination of cardiac arrhythmias (26% with ICD versus 0% with medical therapy; RR 11.4, 95% CI 1.57 to 83.3; 2 trials, 86 participants). Approximately 25% of the ICD group experienced inappropriate ICD firing, all of which was corrected by device reprogramming. No data were available for quality of life or cost. We considered the quality of evidence low using the GRADE methodology, due to study limitations and imprecision of effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAmong people with Brugada syndrome who have survived a prior episode of sudden cardiac death, ICD therapy appeared to reduce mortality when compared to β-blocker therapy, but the true magnitude may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect because of study limitations and imprecision. Due to the large magnitude of effect, it is unlikely that there will be additional studies evaluating the role of ICDs for secondary prevention in this population. Further studies are necessary to determine the optimal treatment, if any, to prevent an initial episode of sudden cardiac death in people with cardiac ion channelopathies.\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": "Sudden (unexpected) cardiac death is the leading mechanism of death worldwide. An unknown proportion of these deaths is caused by heart beat abnormalities that are passed on within families (inherited) that can lead to sudden cardiac death in otherwise healthy people. Four inherited diseases that affect the heart's electrical system, called congenital long QT syndrome, congenital short QT syndrome, Brugada syndrome, and catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, account for most of all inherited cases of sudden cardiac death. These people have abnormalities in the way in which their heart's balance electrolytes (naturally occurring substances in the blood and other body fluids that carry an electric charge) in a way that make them more likely to have higher sudden cardiac death rates than the general population. Two methods are used to prevent sudden cardiac death in these people: 1. implantable cardioverter defibrillators, which are small devices that provide electrical shocks to make the heart rhythm more regular, and 2. medical therapy (treatment with medicines that influence the heart's rhythm).\nThe aim of this systematic review was to compare the potential benefits and harms of implantable cardioverter defibrillators with medical therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in people with inherited heart rhythm abnormalities. We reviewed the evidence up to July 2015 to answer this question." } ]
query-laysum	7281	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a progressive or relapsing and remitting paralysing illness, probably due to an autoimmune response, which should benefit from corticosteroid treatment. Non-randomised studies suggest that corticosteroids are beneficial. Two commonly used corticosteroids are prednisone and prednisolone. Both are usually given as oral tablets. Prednisone is converted into prednisolone in the liver so that the effect of the two drugs is usually the same. Another corticosteroid, dexamethasone, is more potent and is used in smaller doses. The review was first published in 2001 and last updated in 2015; we undertook this update to identify any new evidence.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of corticosteroid treatment for CIDP compared to placebo or no treatment, and to compare the effects of different corticosteroid regimens.\nSearch methods\nOn 8 November 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised trials of corticosteroids for CIDP. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of treatment with any corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone for CIDP, diagnosed by an internationally accepted definition.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors extracted data from included studies and assessed the risk of bias independently. The intended primary outcome was change in disability, with change in impairment after 12 weeks and side effects as secondary outcomes. We assessed strength of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nOne non-blinded RCT comparing prednisone with no treatment in 35 eligible participants did not measure the primary outcome for this systematic review. The trial had a high risk of bias. Neuropathy Impairment Scale scores after 12 weeks improved in 12 of 19 participants randomised to prednisone, compared with five of 16 participants randomised to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) for improvement 2.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 4.52; very low-quality evidence). The trial did not report side effects in detail, but one prednisone-treated participant died.\nA double-blind RCT comparing daily standard-dose oral prednisolone with monthly high-dose oral dexamethasone in 40 participants reported none of the prespecified outcomes for this review. The trial had a low risk of bias, but the quality of evidence was limited as it came from a single small study. There was little or no difference in number of participants who achieved remission (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45 in favour of monthly dexamethasone; moderate-quality evidence), or change in disability or impairment after one year (low-quality evidence). Change of grip strength or Medical Research Council (MRC) scores demonstrated little or no difference between groups (moderate-quality to low-quality evidence). Eight of 16 people in the prednisolone group and seven of 24 people in the dexamethasone group deteriorated. Side effects were similar with each regimen, except that sleeplessness was less common with monthly dexamethasone (low-quality evidence) as was moon facies (moon-shaped appearance of the face) (moderate-quality evidence).\nExperience from large non-randomised studies suggests that corticosteroids are beneficial, but long-term use causes serious side effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are very uncertain about the effects of oral prednisone compared with no treatment, because the quality of evidence from the only RCT that exists is very low. Nevertheless, corticosteroids are commonly used in practice, supported by very low-quality evidence from observational studies. We also know from observational studies that corticosteroids carry the long-term risk of serious side effects. The efficacy of high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone is probably little different from that of daily standard-dose oral prednisolone. Most side effects occurred with similar frequencies in both groups, but with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone moon facies is probably less common and sleeplessness may be less common than with oral prednisolone. We need further research to identify factors that predict response.\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 randomised controlled trial (RCT) addressing each question. We did not find any new trials for this update.\nA 1982 US study compared daily prednisone tablets for 12 weeks with no treatment. Thirty-five people took part. Fourteen participants received prednisone (10 male and four female, with a median age of 46.5 years) and 14 did not receive prednisone (nine male and five female, with a median age of 50 years). Those taking part and the trialists were aware of which treatment the participants received (i.e. they were not 'blinded'), which carries a risk of bias.\nThe second study compared two six-month corticosteroid treatment regimens: daily standard-dose prednisolone tablets, and high-dose dexamethasone tablets for four days each month. Multiple European centres did the trial, which reported its findings in 2010. Forty-one people took part but one person withdrew after one day because they did not want to continue and the diagnosis was wrong. Of those who continued, 24 (18 men and six women, average age 59.9 years) received monthly dexamethasone and 16 (10 men and six women, average age 60.8 years) received daily prednisolone.\nThere was no commercial support for either study. Funding for both came from an academic centre or charitable funds." } ]
query-laysum	7282	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSocial networking platforms offer a wide reach for public health interventions allowing communication with broad audiences using tools that are generally free and straightforward to use and may be combined with other components, such as public health policies. We define interactive social media as activities, practices, or behaviours among communities of people who have gathered online to interactively share information, knowledge, and opinions.\nObjectives\nWe aimed to assess the effectiveness of interactive social media interventions, in which adults are able to communicate directly with each other, on changing health behaviours, body functions, psychological health, well-being, and adverse effects.\nOur secondary objective was to assess the effects of these interventions on the health of populations who experience health inequity as defined by PROGRESS-Plus. We assessed whether there is evidence about PROGRESS-Plus populations being included in studies and whether results are analysed across any of these characteristics.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE (including trial registries) and PsycINFO. We used Google, Web of Science, and relevant web sites to identify additional studies and searched reference lists of included studies. We searched for published and unpublished studies from 2001 until June 1, 2020. We did not limit results by language.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs). We included studies in which the intervention website, app, or social media platform described a goal of changing a health behaviour, or included a behaviour change technique. The social media intervention had to be delivered to adults via a commonly-used social media platform or one that mimicked a commonly-used platform. We included studies comparing an interactive social media intervention alone or as a component of a multi-component intervention with either a non-interactive social media control or an active but less-interactive social media comparator (e.g. a moderated versus an unmoderated discussion group).\nOur main outcomes were health behaviours (e.g. physical activity), body function outcomes (e.g. blood glucose), psychological health outcomes (e.g. depression), well-being, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were process outcomes important for behaviour change and included knowledge, attitudes, intention and motivation, perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, and social support.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used a pre-tested data extraction form and collected data independently, in duplicate. Because we aimed to assess broad outcomes, we extracted only one outcome per main and secondary outcome categories prioritised by those that were the primary outcome as reported by the study authors, used in a sample size calculation, and patient-important.\nMain results\nWe included 88 studies (871,378 participants), of which 84 were RCTs, three were CBAs and one was an ITS. The majority of the studies were conducted in the USA (54%). In total, 86% were conducted in high-income countries and the remaining 14% in upper middle-income countries. The most commonly used social media platform was Facebook (39%) with few studies utilising other platforms such as WeChat, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Google Hangouts. Many studies (48%) used web-based communities or apps that mimic functions of these well-known social media platforms.\nWe compared studies assessing interactive social media interventions with non-interactive social media interventions, which included paper-based or in-person interventions or no intervention. We only reported the RCT results in our 'Summary of findings' table. We found a range of effects on health behaviours, such as breastfeeding, condom use, diet quality, medication adherence, medical screening and testing, physical activity, tobacco use, and vaccination. For example, these interventions may increase physical activity and medical screening tests but there was little to no effect for other health behaviours, such as improved diet or reduced tobacco use (20,139 participants in 54 RCTs). For body function outcomes, interactive social media interventions may result in small but important positive effects, such as a small but important positive effect on weight loss and a small but important reduction in resting heart rate (4521 participants in 30 RCTs). Interactive social media may improve overall well-being (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.79, moderate effect, low-certainty evidence) demonstrated by an increase of 3.77 points on a general well-being scale (from 1.15 to 6.48 points higher) where scores range from 14 to 70 (3792 participants in 16 studies). We found no difference in effect on psychological outcomes (depression and distress) representing a difference of 0.1 points on a standard scale in which scores range from 0 to 63 points (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.12, low-certainty evidence, 2070 participants in 12 RCTs).\nWe also compared studies assessing interactive social media interventions with those with an active but less interactive social media control (11 studies). Four RCTs (1523 participants) that reported on physical activity found an improvement demonstrated by an increase of 28 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week (from 10 to 47 minutes more, SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.59, small effect, very low-certainty evidence). Two studies found little to no difference in well-being for those in the intervention and control groups (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.13, small effect, low-certainty evidence), demonstrated by a mean change of 0.4 points on a scale with a range of 0 to 100.\nAdverse events related to the social media component of the interventions, such as privacy issues, were not reported in any of our included studies.\nWe were unable to conduct planned subgroup analyses related to health equity as only four studies reported relevant data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review combined data for a variety of outcomes and found that social media interventions that aim to increase physical activity may be effective and social media interventions may improve well-being. While we assessed many other outcomes, there were too few studies to compare or, where there were studies, the evidence was uncertain. None of our included studies reported adverse effects related to the social media component of the intervention. Future studies should assess adverse events related to the interactive social media component and should report on population characteristics to increase our understanding of the potential effect of these interventions on reducing health inequities.\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 88 studies involving 871,378 adults (aged 18 years and older). Most studies (49) took place in the USA; all studies took place in either high-income countries or upper middle-income countries. Facebook was the most commonly used social media platform; others included WeChat, Twitter, WhatsApp and Google Hangouts.\nIn most studies the effects of interactive social media programmes were compared against non-interactive programmes, including paper-based or in-person programmes, or no programme. Ten studies compared two social media programmes against each another; for these studies we chose the more interactive of the two programmes as the 'interactive social media programme'." } ]
query-laysum	7283	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBeta-blockers are an essential part of standard therapy in adult congestive heart failure and therefore, are expected to be beneficial in children. However, congestive heart failure in children differs from that in adults in terms of characteristics, aetiology, and drug clearance. Therefore, paediatric needs must be specifically investigated. This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of beta-adrenoceptor-blockers (beta-blockers) in children with congestive heart failure.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS up to November 2015. Bibliographies of identified studies were checked. No language restrictions were applied.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, controlled, clinical trials investigating the effect of beta-blocker therapy on paediatric congestive heart failure.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted and assessed data from the included trials.\nMain results\nWe identified four new studies for the review update; the review now includes seven studies with 420 participants. Four small studies with 20 to 30 children each, and two larger studies of 80 children each, showed an improvement of congestive heart failure with beta-blocker therapy. A larger study with 161 participants showed no evidence of benefit over placebo in a composite measure of heart failure outcomes. The included studies showed no significant difference in mortality or heart transplantation rates between the beta-blocker and control groups. No significant adverse events were reported with beta-blockers, apart from one episode of complete heart block. A meta-analysis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and fractional shortening (LVFS) data showed a very small improvement with beta-blockers.\nHowever, there were vast differences in the age, age range, and health of the participants (aetiology and severity of heart failure; heterogeneity of diagnoses and co-morbidities); there was a range of treatments across studies (choice of beta-blocker, dosing, duration of treatment); and a lack of standardised methods and outcome measures. Therefore, the primary outcomes could not be pooled in meta-analyses.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is not enough evidence to support or discourage the use of beta-blockers in children with congestive heart failure, or to propose a paediatric dosing scheme. However, the sparse data available suggested that children with congestive heart failure might benefit from beta-blocker treatment. Further investigations in clearly defined populations with standardised methodology are required to establish guidelines for therapy. Pharmacokinetic investigations of beta-blockers in children are also required to provide effective dosing in future trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Beta-blocker therapy improved heart failure in four small studies with less than 30 participants each, and two larger studies with 80 participants each. However, the largest trial, with 161 participants, did not show a significant effect of the investigated beta-blocker over placebo.\nNone of the studies reported any severe beta-blocker-related adverse events, apart from one child who had a heart rhythm disturbance." } ]
query-laysum	7284	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBacterial folliculitis and boils are globally prevalent bacterial infections involving inflammation of the hair follicle and the perifollicular tissue. Some folliculitis may resolve spontaneously, but others may progress to boils without treatment. Boils, also known as furuncles, involve adjacent tissue and may progress to cellulitis or lymphadenitis. A systematic review of the best evidence on the available treatments was needed.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions (such as topical antibiotics, topical antiseptic agents, systemic antibiotics, phototherapy, and incision and drainage) for people with bacterial folliculitis and boils.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to June 2020: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched five trials registers up to June 2020. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed systemic antibiotics; topical antibiotics; topical antiseptics, such as topical benzoyl peroxide; phototherapy; and surgical interventions in participants with bacterial folliculitis or boils. Eligible comparators were active intervention, placebo, or no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were 'clinical cure' and 'severe adverse events leading to withdrawal of treatment'; secondary outcomes were 'quality of life', 'recurrence of folliculitis or boil following completion of treatment', and 'minor adverse events not leading to withdrawal of treatment'. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 18 RCTs (1300 participants). The studies included more males (332) than females (221), although not all studies reported these data. Seventeen trials were conducted in hospitals, and one was conducted in clinics. The participants included both children and adults (0 to 99 years). The studies did not describe severity in detail; of the 232 participants with folliculitis, 36% were chronic. At least 61% of participants had furuncles or boils, of which at least 47% were incised. Duration of oral and topical treatments ranged from 3 days to 6 weeks, with duration of follow-up ranging from 3 days to 6 months. The study sites included Asia, Europe, and America. Only three trials reported funding, with two funded by industry.\nTen studies were at high risk of 'performance bias', five at high risk of 'reporting bias', and three at high risk of 'detection bias'.\nWe did not identify any RCTs comparing topical antibiotics against topical antiseptics, topical antibiotics against systemic antibiotics, or phototherapy against sham light. Eleven trials compared different oral antibiotics.\nWe are uncertain as to whether cefadroxil compared to flucloxacillin (17/21 versus 18/20, risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.16; 41 participants; 1 study; 10 days of treatment) or azithromycin compared to cefaclor (8/15 versus 10/16, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.40; 31 participants; 2 studies; 7 days of treatment) differed in clinical cure (both very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in clinical cure rate between cefdinir and cefalexin after 17 to 24 days (25/32 versus 32/42, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.38; 74 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), and there probably is little to no difference in clinical cure rate between cefditoren pivoxil and cefaclor after 7 days (24/46 versus 21/47, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.78; 93 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence).\nFor risk of severe adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal, there may be little to no difference between cefdinir versus cefalexin after 17 to 24 days (1/191 versus 1/200, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.62; 391 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). There may be an increased risk with cefadroxil compared with flucloxacillin after 10 days (6/327 versus 2/324, RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 14.62; 651 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) and cefditoren pivoxil compared with cefaclor after 7 days (2/77 versus 0/73, RR 4.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 97.17; 150 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence). However, for these three comparisons the 95% CI is very wide and includes the possibility of both increased and reduced risk of events. We are uncertain whether azithromycin affects the risk of severe adverse events leading to withdrawal of treatment compared to cefaclor (274 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) as no events occurred in either group after seven days.\nFor risk of minor adverse events, there is probably little to no difference between the following comparisons: cefadroxil versus flucloxacillin after 10 days (91/327 versus 116/324, RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.98; 651 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) or cefditoren pivoxil versus cefaclor after 7 days (8/77 versus 5/73, RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.52 to 4.42; 150 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of azithromycin versus cefaclor after seven days due to very low-certainty evidence (7/148 versus 4/126, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.17; 274 participants; 2 studies). The study comparing cefdinir versus cefalexin did not report data for total minor adverse events, but both groups experienced diarrhoea, nausea, and vaginal mycosis during 17 to 24 days of treatment. Additional adverse events reported in the other included studies were vomiting, rashes, and gastrointestinal symptoms such as stomach ache, with some events leading to study withdrawal.\nThree included studies assessed recurrence following completion of treatment, none of which evaluated our key comparisons, and no studies assessed quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no RCTs regarding the efficacy and safety of topical antibiotics versus antiseptics, topical versus systemic antibiotics, or phototherapy versus sham light for treating bacterial folliculitis or boils. Comparative trials have not identified important differences in efficacy or safety outcomes between different oral antibiotics for treating bacterial folliculitis or boils.\nMost of the included studies assessed participants with skin and soft tissue infection which included many disease types, whilst others focused specifically on folliculitis or boils. Antibiotic sensitivity data for causative organisms were often not reported. Future trials should incorporate culture and sensitivity information and consider comparing topical antibiotic with antiseptic, and topical versus systemic antibiotics or phototherapy.\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 18 studies that involved a total of 1300 people. People were followed-up for between one week and three months. Studies were set in Asia, Europe and America. Only three studies reported information about funding: non-profit organisations funded one study, and pharmaceutical companies funded two studies.\nThe studies compared:\n- different oral antibiotics (11 studies);\n- different topical antibiotics (2 studies);\n- different treatments for wound care after boil incision (2 studies);\n- different traditional Chinese medicines (1 study);\n- co-trimoxazole (antibiotics) with, and without, 8-methoxypsoralen (a light-sensitising treatment) followed by exposure to sunlight (1 study); and\n- penicillin (an antibiotic) with, and without, fire cupping (a form of traditional Chinese medicine) after surgery (1 study).\nWe found no studies that evaluated antiseptics or investigated quality of life or recurrence of bacterial folliculitis or boils.\nHere we report the findings from four comparisons of different oral antibiotics.\nCure\nThe evidence from studies that investigated how successfully different oral antibiotics cured bacterial folliculitis and boils suggests that:\n- there is probably little to no difference between cefditoren pivoxil and cefaclor (1 study, 93 people);\n- there may be little to no difference between cefdinir and cephalexin (1 study, 74 people).\nThe few studies available did not provide sufficiently robust information to determine if:\n- cefadroxil is better or worse than flucloxacillin (1 study, 41 people); or\n- azithromycin is better or worse than cefaclor (2 studies, 31 people).\nSevere adverse events (such as fever or vomiting)\nThe evidence from studies that compared frequencies of severe adverse events suggests there may be little to no difference between:\n- cefadroxil and flucloxacillin (1 study, 651 people);\n- cefdinir and cephalexin (1 study, 391 people); and\n- cefditoren pivoxil and cefaclor (1 study, 150 people).\nWe do not know if azithromycin is associated with more, or fewer, severe adverse events than cefaclor. This is because studies provided insufficiently robust information (2 studies, 274 people).\nMinor adverse events (such as feeling thirsty or dizzy)\nThe evidence from studies that compared frequencies of minor adverse events suggests there is probably little to no difference between:\n- cefadroxil and flucloxacillin (1 study, 651 people); and\n- cefditoren pivoxil and cefaclor (1 study, 150 people).\nWe do not know whether there are more, or fewer, minor adverse events associated with:\n- cefdinir or cephalexin (1 study, 391 people); or\n- azithromycin or cefaclor (2 studies, 274 people).\nThis is because studies reported insufficiently robust information." } ]
query-laysum	7285	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople who are prescribed self administered medications typically take only about half their prescribed doses. Efforts to assist patients with adherence to medications might improve the benefits of prescribed medications.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective of this review is to assess the effects of interventions intended to enhance patient adherence to prescribed medications for medical conditions, on both medication adherence and clinical outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe updated searches of The Cochrane Library, including CENTRAL (via http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cochranelibrary/search/), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO (all via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), and Sociological Abstracts (via ProQuest) on 11 January 2013 with no language restriction. We also reviewed bibliographies in articles on patient adherence, and contacted authors of relevant original and review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included unconfounded RCTs of interventions to improve adherence with prescribed medications, measuring both medication adherence and clinical outcome, with at least 80% follow-up of each group studied and, for long-term treatments, at least six months follow-up for studies with positive findings at earlier time points.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted all data and a third author resolved disagreements. The studies differed widely according to medical condition, patient population, intervention, measures of adherence, and clinical outcomes. Pooling results according to one of these characteristics still leaves highly heterogeneous groups, and we could not justify meta-analysis. Instead, we conducted a qualitative analysis with a focus on the RCTs with the lowest risk of bias for study design and the primary clinical outcome.\nMain results\nThe present update included 109 new RCTs published since the previous update in January 2007, bringing the total number of RCTs to 182; we found five RCTs from the previous update to be ineligible and excluded them. Studies were heterogeneous for patients, medical problems, treatment regimens, adherence interventions, and adherence and clinical outcome measurements, and most had high risk of bias. The main changes in comparison with the previous update include that we now: 1) report a lack of convincing evidence also specifically among the studies with the lowest risk of bias; 2) do not try to classify studies according to intervention type any more, due to the large heterogeneity; 3) make our database available for collaboration on sub-analyses, in acknowledgement of the need to make collective advancement in this difficult field of research. Of all 182 RCTs, 17 had the lowest risk of bias for study design features and their primary clinical outcome, 11 from the present update and six from the previous update. The RCTs at lowest risk of bias generally involved complex interventions with multiple components, trying to overcome barriers to adherence by means of tailored ongoing support from allied health professionals such as pharmacists, who often delivered intense education, counseling (including motivational interviewing or cognitive behavioral therapy by professionals) or daily treatment support (or both), and sometimes additional support from family or peers. Only five of these RCTs reported improvements in both adherence and clinical outcomes, and no common intervention characteristics were apparent. Even the most effective interventions did not lead to large improvements in adherence or clinical outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAcross the body of evidence, effects were inconsistent from study to study, and only a minority of lowest risk of bias RCTs improved both adherence and clinical outcomes. Current methods of improving medication adherence for chronic health problems are mostly complex and not very effective, so that the full benefits of treatment cannot be realized. The research in this field needs advances, including improved design of feasible long-term interventions, objective adherence measures, and sufficient study power to detect improvements in patient-important clinical outcomes. By making our comprehensive database available for sharing we hope to contribute to achieving these advances.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Selection criteria\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We selected studies reporting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing a group receiving an intervention to improve medicine adherence with a group not receiving the intervention. We included trials if they measured both medicine adherence and a clinical outcome (e.g. blood pressure), with at least 80% of patients studied until the end." } ]
query-laysum	7286	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute respiratory infections (ARIs) last for less than 30 days and are the most common acute diseases affecting people. Exercise has been shown to improve health generally, but it is uncertain whether exercise may be effective in reducing the occurrence, severity, and duration of ARIs. This is an update of our review published in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of exercise for altering the occurrence, severity, or duration of acute respiratory infections.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2020, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1948 to March week 1, 2020), Embase (1974 to 05 March 2020), CINAHL (1981 to 05 March 2020), LILACS (1982 to 05 March 2020), SPORTDiscus (1985 to 05 March 2020), PEDro (searched 05 March 2020), OTseeker (searched 05 March 2020), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 05 March 2020).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (method of allocation that is not truly random, e.g. based on date of birth, medical record number) of exercise for ARIs in the general population.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from the included trials using a standard form. One review author entered data, which a second review author checked. We contacted trial authors to request missing data. There were sufficient differences in the populations trialed and in the nature of the interventions to use the random-effects model (which makes fewer assumptions than the fixed-effect model) in the analysis.\nMain results\nWe included three new trials for this update (473 participants) for a total of 14 trials involving 1377 adults, published between 1990 and 2018. Nine trials were conducted in the USA, and one each in Brazil, Canada, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey.\nSample sizes ranged from 16 to 419 participants, aged from 18 to 85 years. The proportion of female participants ranged from 52% to 100%. Follow-up duration ranged from 1 to 36 weeks (median = 12 weeks).\nModerate-intensity aerobic exercise (walking, bicycling, treadmill, or a combination) was evaluated in 11 trials, and was most commonly prescribed at least three times a week for 30 to 45 minutes.\nThere was no difference between exercise and no exercise in the number of ARI episodes per person per year (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 1.30; 4 trials; 514 participants; low-certainty evidence); proportion of participants who experienced at least one ARI over the study period (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.08; 5 trials; 520 participants; low-certainty evidence); and the number of symptom days per episode of illness (mean difference (MD) −0.44 day, 95% CI −2.33 to 1.46; 6 trials; 557 participants; low-certainty evidence). Exercise reduced the severity of ARI symptoms measured on the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS-24) (MD −103.57, 95% CI −198.28 to −8.87; 2 trials; 373 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and the number of symptom days during follow-up period (MD −2.24 days, 95% CI −3.50 to −0.98; 4 trials; 483 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nExcercise did not have a significant effect on laboratory parameters (blood lymphocytes, salivary secretory immunoglobulin, and neutrophils), quality of life outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and exercise-related injuries. There was no difference in participant dropout between the intervention and control groups.\nOverall, the certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded mainly due to limitations in study design and implementation, imprecision, and inconsistency.\nSeven trials were funded by public agencies; five trials did not report funding; and two trials were funded by private companies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExercise did not reduce the number of ARI episodes, proportion of participants experiencing at least one ARI during the study, or the number of symptom days per episode of illness. However, exercise reduced the severity of ARI symptoms (two studies) and the number of symptom days during the study follow-up period (four studies). Small study size, risk of bias, and heterogeneity in the populations studied contributed to the uncertainty of the findings. Larger trials that are designed to avoid risk of bias associated with participant selection, blinding of outcomes assessors, and with adequate reporting of all outcomes proposed for measurement in trials, would help to provide more robust evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low, which means that further research is likely to impact our conclusions. There is a need for better designed studies to allow a clearer understanding as to whether exercise reduces the occurrence, severity, or duration of acute respiratory infections." } ]
query-laysum	7287	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBreast cancer is the most frequently occurring malignancy and the second cause of death for cancer in women. Cancer prevention agents (CPAs) are a promising approach to reduce the burden of breast cancer. Currently, two main types of CPAs are available: selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs, such as tamoxifen and raloxifene) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs, such as exemestane and anastrozole).\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and acceptability of single CPAs for the prevention of primary breast cancer, in unaffected women, at an above-average risk of developing breast cancer.\nUsing a network meta-analysis, to rank single CPAs, based on their efficacy and acceptability (an endpoint that is defined as the inverse of CPA-related toxicity).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 17 August 2018. We handsearched reference lists to identify additional relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled women without a personal history of breast cancer but with an above-average risk of developing a tumor. Women had to be treated with a CPA and followed up to record the occurrence of breast cancer and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and conducted risk of bias assessments of the included studies, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Outcome data included incidence of breast carcinoma (both invasive and in situ carcinoma) and adverse events (both overall and severe toxicity). We performed a conventional meta-analysis (for direct comparisons of a single CPA with placebo or a different CPA) and network meta-analysis (for indirect comparisons).\nMain results\nWe included six studies enrolling 50,927 women randomized to receive one CPA (SERMs: tamoxifen or raloxifene, or AIs: exemestane or anastrozole) or placebo. Three studies compared tamoxifen and placebo, two studies compared AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) versus placebo, and one study compared tamoxifen versus raloxifene. The risk of bias was low for all RCTs.\nFor the tamoxifen versus placebo comparison, tamoxifen likely resulted in a lower risk of developing breast cancer compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.76; 3 studies, 22,832 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, tamoxifen likely increased the risk of severe toxicity compared to placebo (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47; 2 studies, 20,361 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In particular, women randomized to receive tamoxifen experienced a higher incidence of both endometrial carcinoma (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.38; high-certainty evidence) and thromboembolism (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.89; high-certainty evidence) compared to women who received placebo.\nFor the AIs versus placebo comparison, AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) reduced the risk of breast cancer by 53% (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63; 2 studies, 8424 women; high-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, AIs increased the risk of severe toxicity by 18% (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.28; 2 studies, 8352 women; high-certainty evidence). These differences were sustained especially by endocrine (e.g. hot flashes), gastrointestinal (e.g. diarrhea), and musculoskeletal (e.g. arthralgia) adverse events, while there were no differences in endometrial cancer or thromboembolism rates between AIs and placebo.\nFor the tamoxifen versus raloxifene comparison, raloxifene probably performed worse than tamoxifen in terms of breast cancer incidence reduction (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.43; 1 study, 19,490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), but its use was associated with lower toxicity rates (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; 1 study, 19,490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), particularly relating to incidence of endometrial cancer and thromboembolism.\nAn indirect comparison of treatment effects allowed us to compare the SERMs and AIs in this review. In terms of efficacy, AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) may have reduced breast cancer incidence slightly compared to tamoxifen (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.98; 5 RCTs, 31,256 women); however, the certainty of evidence was low. A lack of model convergence did not allow us to analyze toxicity data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor women with an above-average risk of developing breast cancer, CPAs can reduce the incidence of this disease. AIs appear to be more effective than SERMs (tamoxifen) in reducing the risk of developing breast cancer. AIs are not associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events. However, long-term data on toxicities from tamoxifen are available while the follow-up toxicity data on unaffected women taking AIs is relatively short. Additional data from direct comparisons are needed to fully address the issues of breast cancer prevention by risk-reducing medications, with special regards to acceptability (i.e. the benefit/harm ratio).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This Cochrane Review aimed to summarize the evidence on the efficacy and toxicity of CPAs for the prevention of primary breast cancer." } ]
query-laysum	7288	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPostoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic surgery. Fibrin sealants have been used in some centres to reduce POPF rate. However, the use of fibrin sealant during pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of fibrin sealant use for the prevention of POPF (grade B or C) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery compared to no fibrin sealant use.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and five trials registers on 09 March 2023, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fibrin sealant (fibrin glue or fibrin sealant patch) versus control (no fibrin sealant or placebo) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 14 RCTs, randomising 1989 participants, comparing fibrin sealant use versus no fibrin sealant use for different locations: stump closure reinforcement (eight trials), pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement (five trials), or main pancreatic duct occlusion (two trials). Six RCTs were carried out in single centres; two in dual centres; and six in multiple centres. One RCT was conducted in Australia; one in Austria; two in France; three in Italy; one in Japan; two in the Netherlands; two in South Korea; and two in the USA. The mean age of the participants ranged from 50.0 years to 66.5 years. All RCTs were at high risk of bias.\nApplication of fibrin sealants to pancreatic stump closure reinforcement after distal pancreatectomy\nWe included eight RCTs involving 1119 participants: 559 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 560 to the control group after distal pancreatectomy. Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the rate of POPF (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.21; 5 studies, 1002 participants; low-certainty evidence) and overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.48; 4 studies, 893 participants; low-certainty evidence). After fibrin sealant use, approximately 199 people (155 to 256 people) out of 1000 developed POPF compared with 212 people out of 1000 when no fibrin sealant was used. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1051 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and total length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.99 days, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.82; 2 studies, 371 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Fibrin sealant use may reduce the reoperation rate slightly (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.90; 3 studies, 623 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in five studies (732 participants), and there were no serious adverse events related to fibrin sealant use (low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report quality of life or cost-effectiveness.\nApplication of fibrin sealants to pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement after pancreaticoduodenectomy\nWe included five RCTs involving 519 participants: 248 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 271 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on the rate of POPF (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.48; 3 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (Peto OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.06; 5 studies, 517 participants; very low-certainty evidence), reoperation rate (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.66; 3 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and total hospital cost (MD -1489.00 US dollars, 95% CI -3256.08 to 278.08; 1 study, 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). After fibrin sealant use, approximately 130 people (70 to 240 people) out of 1000 developed POPF compared with 97 people out of 1000 when no fibrin sealant was used. Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference both in overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19; 4 studies, 447 participants; low-certainty evidence) and in total length of hospital stay (MD -0.33 days, 95% CI -2.30 to 1.63; 4 studies, 447 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in two studies (194 participants), and there were no serious adverse events related to fibrin sealant use (very low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report quality of life.\nApplication of fibrin sealants to pancreatic duct occlusion after pancreaticoduodenectomy\nWe included two RCTs involving 351 participants: 188 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 163 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality (Peto OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.13; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.02; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and reoperation rate (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the total length of hospital stay (median 16 to 17 days versus 17 days; 2 studies, 351 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in one study (169 participants; low-certainty evidence): more participants developed diabetes mellitus when fibrin sealants were applied to pancreatic duct occlusion, both at three months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 10.8% control group; 29 participants versus 9 participants) and 12 months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 14.5% control group; 29 participants versus 12 participants). The studies did not report POPF, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the current available evidence, fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the rate of POPF in people undergoing distal pancreatectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on the rate of POPF in people undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. The effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality is uncertain in people undergoing either distal pancreatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Comparison 3\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found two studies with 351 participants who underwent removal of the pancreatic 'head', where surgical glue is used to seal the main pancreatic duct. We do not know if surgical glue use has an effect on:\n- death rate;\n- overall complication rate;\n- additional operation rate.\nCompared with no glue, surgical glue may increase unwanted effects (diabetes mellitus) for these patients. It may make little to no difference to total length of hospital stay.\nThese two studies did not report on postoperative pancreatic fistula rate, hospital cost, and participant health-related quality of life/health status." } ]
query-laysum	7289	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOedema is a common clinical symptom in people with nephrotic syndrome and human albumin has been widely used in the treatment of oedema by increasing vascular volume and this inducing diuresis. It may be used with or without diuretics such as furosemide. However, the quantitative contribution of human albumin in treating oedema is not fully understood. If human albumin were found to be effective and safe in the treatment of oedema, it could help clinicians to develop therapeutic strategies to improve the management of diuretic resistance associated with nephrotic syndrome.\nObjectives\nThis review aimed to examine the benefits and harms of human albumin infusion for treating oedema associated with nephrotic syndrome.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 23 June 2019 through contact with the Information Specialists using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised 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 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effect of human albumin infusion compared with placebo or no intervention, human albumin with diuretics compared with diuretic alone, human albumin compared with diuretics and other treatments, clinical outcomes, death, quality of life, kidney function and adverse effects in people with nephrotic syndrome. We excluded cross-over studies but data for the first period was to be included if available.\nData collection and analysis\nStandard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration were used. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias, study quality and extracted data. We calculated mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nOne study met our inclusion criteria (26 children with minimal change nephrotic syndrome) and 11 were excluded (nine cross-over studies, one where albumin was not used for nephrotic syndrome and one where authors did not state whether the children had oedema). Risk of bias for the included study was unclear for selection bias, high for performance and detection bias, low for attrition bias, and high for selective reporting. The included study compared albumin plus furosemide with an equal volume of dextrose. Of our prespecified outcomes, the authors reported clinical improvement as weight change, serum sodium and adverse outcomes (blood pressure). The authors reported a greater weight loss in the albumin treated group initially but no difference overall at 10 days. However, the data in the text and the figures were inconsistent so we could not confirm the authors statements (very low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether albumin infusion improves serum sodium when compared with an equal volume of dextrose (MD 2.00 mEq/L, 95% CI -0.09 to 4.09), systolic blood pressure (MD 2.00 mmHg, 95% CI -3.52 to 7.52) or diastolic blood pressure (MD 2.00 mmHg, 95%CI -4.29 to 8.29). Death, quality of life, and kidney function were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified only one small study that was relevant to our review, therefore we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the use of human albumin with or without diuretics in nephrotic syndrome. More RCTs 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 (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing (1) albumin with a placebo or no treatment, (2) albumin with a diuretic, (3) albumin combined with a diuretic compared with a diuretic alone, or (4) albumin with other treatments. We excluded cross-over studies but would have included data for the first period before the cross-over if available. The last search was done in June 2019." } ]
query-laysum	7290	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1999. Corticosteroids are widely used in inflammatory conditions as an immunosuppressive agent. Bone loss is a serious side effect of this therapy. Several studies have examined the use of bisphosphonates in the prevention and treatment of glucocorticosteroid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) and have reported varying magnitudes of effect.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates for the prevention and treatment of GIOP in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase up to April 2016 and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) via OVID up to January 2012 for relevant articles and conference proceedings with no language restrictions. We searched two clinical trial registries for ongoing and recently completed studies (ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal). We also reviewed reference lists of relevant review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) satisfying the following criteria: 1) prevention or treatment of GIOP; 2) adults taking a mean steroid dose of 5.0 mg/day or more; 3) active treatment including bisphosphonates of any type alone or in combination with calcium or vitamin D; 4) comparator treatment including a control of calcium or vitamin D, or both, alone or with placebo; and 4) reporting relevant outcomes. We excluded trials that included people with transplant-associated steroid use.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, performed ‘risk of bias’ assessment and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Major outcomes of interest were the incidence of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures after 12 to 24 months; the change in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine and femoral neck after 12 months; serious adverse events; withdrawals due to adverse events; and quality of life. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 27 RCTs with 3075 participants in the review. Pooled analysis for incident vertebral fractures included 12 trials (1343 participants) with high-certainty evidence and low risk of bias. In this analysis 46/597 (or 77 per 1000) people experienced new vertebral fractures in the control group compared with 31/746 (or 44 per 1000; range 27 to 70) in the bisphosphonate group; relative improvement of 43% (9% to 65% better) with bisphosphonates; absolute increased benefit of 2% fewer people sustaining fractures with bisphosphonates (5% fewer to 1% more); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 31 (20 to 145) meaning that approximately 31 people would need to be treated with bisphosphonates to prevent new vertebral fractures in one person.\nPooled analysis for incident nonvertebral fractures included nine trials with 1245 participants with low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision and serious risk of bias as a patient-reported outcome). In this analysis 30/546 (or 55 per 1000) people experienced new nonvertebral fracture in the control group compared with 29/699 (or 42 per 1000; range 25 to 69) in the bisphosphonate group; relative improvement of 21% with bisphosphonates (33% worse to 53% better); absolute increased benefit of 1% fewer people with fractures with bisphosphonates (4% fewer to 1% more).\nPooled analysis on BMD change at the lumbar spine after 12 months included 23 trials with 2042 patients. Eighteen trials with 1665 participants were included in the pooled analysis on BMD at the femoral neck after 12 months. Evidence for both outcomes was moderate-certainty (downgraded for indirectness as a surrogate marker for osteoporosis) with low risk of bias. Overall, the bisphosphonate groups reported stabilisation or increase in BMD, while the control groups showed decreased BMD over the study period. At the lumbar spine, there was an absolute increase in BMD of 3.5% with bisphosphonates (2.90% to 4.10% higher) with a relative improvement of 1.10% with bisphosphonates (0.91% to 1.29%); NNTB 3 (2 to 3). At the femoral neck, the absolute difference in BMD was 2.06% higher in the bisphosphonate group compared to the control group (1.45% to 2.68% higher) with a relative improvement of 1.29% (0.91% to 1.69%); NNTB 5 (4 to 7).\nPooled analysis on serious adverse events included 15 trials (1703 participants) with low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias). In this analysis 131/811 (or 162 per 1000) people experienced serious adverse events in the control group compared to 136/892 (or 147 per 1000; range 120 to 181) in the bisphosphonate group; absolute increased harm of 0% more serious adverse events (2% fewer to 2% more); a relative per cent change with 9% improvement (12% worse to 26% better).\nPooled analysis for withdrawals due to adverse events included 15 trials (1790 patients) with low-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias). In this analysis 63/866 (or 73 per 1000) people withdrew in the control group compared to 76/924 (or 77 per 1000; range 56 to 107) in the bisphosphonate group; an absolute increased harm of 1% more withdrawals with bisphosphonates (95% CI 1% fewer to 3% more); a relative per cent change 6% worse (95% CI 47% worse to 23% better).\nQuality of life was not assessed in any of the trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was high-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates are beneficial in reducing the risk of vertebral fractures with data extending to 24 months of use. There was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may make little or no difference in preventing nonvertebral fractures. There was moderate-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates are beneficial in preventing and treating corticosteroid-induced bone loss at both the lumbar spine and femoral neck. Regarding harm, there was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may make little or no difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events. We are cautious in interpreting these data as markers for harm and tolerability due to the potential for bias.\nOverall, our review supports the use of bisphosphonates to reduce the risk of vertebral fractures and the prevention and treatment of steroid-induced bone loss.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Authors' conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Based on moderate- to high-certainty evidence, we found that bisphosphonates are beneficial in preventing new spinal fractures and preventing and treating steroid-induced bone loss at the lumbar spine and femoral neck. For preventing non-spinal fractures, we found that there was little or no difference whether patients used bisphosphonates or not, although this evidence was low-certainty because the methods used to assess non-spinal fractures were subject to bias.\nWe found that there was little or no difference in the number of serious adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events when comparing bisphosphonates to no treatment. The evidence for these outcomes was of low certainty and we are cautious in making firm conclusions about the harm of bisphosphonates based only on these measures.\nOverall, our review supports the use of bisphosphonates to reduce the risk of spinal fractures and in the prevention and treatment of steroid-induced bone loss." } ]
query-laysum	7291	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGestational diabetes with onset or first recognition during pregnancy is an increasing problem worldwide. Myo-inositol, an isomer of inositol, is a naturally occurring sugar commonly found in cereals, corn, legumes and meat. Myo-inositol is one of the intracellular mediators of the insulin signal and correlates with insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetes. The potential beneficial effect of improving insulin sensitivity suggests that myo-inositol may be useful for women in preventing gestational diabetes. This is an update of a review first published in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo assess if antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol is safe and effective, for the mother and fetus, in preventing gestational diabetes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP (17 March 2022) and the reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including cluster-RCTs and conference abstracts, assessing the effects of myo-inositol for the prevention of gestational diabetes in pregnant women. We included studies that compared any dose of myo-inositol, alone or in a combination preparation, with no treatment, placebo or another intervention. Quasi-randomised and cross-over trials were not eligible. We excluded women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data. We checked the data for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included seven RCTs (one conducted in Ireland, six conducted in Italy) reporting on 1319 women who were 10 weeks to 24 weeks pregnant at the start of the studies. The studies had relatively small sample sizes and the overall risk of bias was low.\nFor the primary maternal outcomes, meta-analysis showed that myo-inositol may reduce the incidence of gestational diabetes (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 0.90; 6 studies, 1140 women) and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.61; 5 studies, 1052 women). However, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low. For the primary neonatal outcomes, only one study measured the risk of a large-for-gestational-age infant and found myo-inositol was associated with both appreciable benefit and harm (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.02; 1 study, 234 infants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on the other primary neonatal outcomes (perinatal mortality, mortality or morbidity composite).\nFor the secondary maternal outcomes, we are unclear about the effect of myo-inositol on weight gain during pregnancy (mean difference (MD) -0.25 kilogram (kg), 95% CI -1.26 to 0.75 kg; 4 studies, 831 women) and perineal trauma (RR 4.0, 95% CI 0.45 to 35.25; 1 study, 234 women) because the evidence was assessed as being very low-certainty. Further, myo-inositol may result in little to no difference in caesarean section (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07; 4 studies, 829 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on the other secondary maternal outcomes (postnatal depression and the development of subsequent type 2 diabetes mellitus). For the secondary neonatal outcomes, meta-analysis showed no neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 3.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 10.52; 4 studies; 671 infants; very low-certainty evidence). However, myo-inositol may be associated with a reduction in the incidence of preterm birth (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70; 4 studies; 829 infants). There were insufficient data for a number of maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes, and no data were reported for any of the long-term childhood or adulthood outcomes, or for health service utilisation outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence from seven studies shows that antenatal dietary supplementation with myo-inositol during pregnancy may reduce the incidence of gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and preterm birth. Limited data suggest that supplementation with myo-inositol may not reduce the risk of a large-for-gestational-age infant.\nThe current evidence is based on small studies that were not powered to detect differences in outcomes such as perinatal mortality and serious infant morbidity. Six of the included studies were conducted in Italy and one in Ireland, which raises concerns about the lack of generalisability to other settings. There is evidence of inconsistency among doses of myo-inositol, the timing of administration and study population. As a result, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence for many outcomes to low or very low certainty.\nFurther studies for this promising antenatal intervention for preventing gestational diabetes are encouraged and should include pregnant women of different ethnicities and varying risk factors. Myo-inositol at different doses, frequency and timing of administration, should be compared with placebo, diet and exercise, and pharmacological interventions. Long-term follow-up should be considered and outcomes should include potential harms, including adverse effects.\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": "Women who develop gestational diabetes have a higher risk of experiencing complications during pregnancy and birth, as well as developing diabetes later on in life. The babies of mothers who have gestational diabetes can be larger than they should be and might be injured at birth. These babies are at risk of diabetes, even as young children or young adults. The number of women being diagnosed with gestational diabetes is increasing around the world, so finding simple and cost-effective ways to prevent women from developing this condition is important.\nMyo-inositol is a naturally-occurring sugar found in cereals, corn, green vegetables, and meat, that has a role in the body's sensitivity to insulin." } ]
query-laysum	7292	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nParastomal herniation is a common problem following formation of a stoma after both elective and emergency abdominal surgery. Symptomatic hernias give rise to a significant amount of patient morbidity, and in some cases mortality, and therefore may necessitate surgical treatment to repair the hernial defect and/or re-site the stoma. In an effort to reduce this complication, recent research has focused on the application of a synthetic or biological mesh, inserted during stoma formation to help strengthen the abdominal wall.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective was to evaluate whether mesh reinforcement during stoma formation reduces the incidence of parastomal herniation. Secondary objectives included the safety or potential harms or both of mesh placement in terms of stoma-related infections, mesh-related infections, patient-reported symptoms/postoperative quality of life, and re-hospitalisation/ambulatory visits.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1970 to 11 January 2018), Ovid Embase (1974 to 11 January 2018), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to 11 January 2018). To identify ongoing studies, we also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) on 11 January 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered for inclusion all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of prosthetic mesh (including biological/composite mesh) placement versus a control group (no mesh) for the prevention of parastomal hernia.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the studies identified by the literature search for potential eligibility. We obtained the full articles for all studies that potentially met the inclusion criteria and included all those that met the criteria. Any differences in opinion between review authors were resolved by consensus. We pooled study data into a meta-analysis. We assessed heterogeneity by calculation of I2 and expressed results for each variable as a risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). We expressed continous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% CIs.\nMain results\nWe included 10 RCTs involving a total of 844 participants. The primary outcome was overall incidence of parastomal herniation. Secondary outcomes were rate of reoperation at 12 months, operative time, postoperative length of hospital stay, stoma-related infections, mesh-related infections, quality of life, and rehospitalisation rate. We judged the risk of bias across all domains to be low in six trials. We judged four trials to have an overall high risk of bias.\nThe overall incidence of parastomal hernia was less in participants receiving a prophylactic mesh compared to those who had a standard ostomy formation (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.66; 10 studies, 771 participants; I2 = 69%; low-quality evidence). In absolute numbers, the incidence of parastomal hernia was 22 per 100 participants (18 to 27) receiving prophylactic mesh compared to 41 per 100 participants having a standard ostomy formation.\nThere were no differences in the need for reoperation (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.64; 9 studies, 757 participants; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence); operative time (MD -6.50 (min), 95% CI -18.24 to 5.24; 6 studies, 671 participants; low-quality evidence); postoperative length of hospital stay (MD -0.95 (days), 95% CI -2.03 to 0.70; 4 studies, 500 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or stoma-related infections (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.50; 6 studies, 472 participants; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) between the two groups.\nWe were unable to analyse mesh-related infections, quality of life, and rehospitalisation rate due to sparse data or because the outcome was not reported in the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis Cochrane Review included 10 RCTs with a total of 844 participants. The review demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of parastomal hernia in people who had a prophylactic synthetic mesh placed at the time of the index operation compared to a standard ostomy formation. However, our confidence in this estimate is low due to the presence of a large degree of clinical heterogeneity, as well as high variability in follow-up duration and technique of parastomal herniation detection. We found the rate of stoma-related infection to be similar in both the intervention and control groups.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found that mesh placement around the stoma at the time of stoma formation reduces the incidence of future hernia formation. The participants having a mesh fitted had a similar level of complications as those not having a mesh." } ]
query-laysum	7293	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were approved for treating people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although metformin remains the first-line pharmacotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a body of evidence has recently emerged indicating that DPP4i, GLP-1RA and SGLT2i may exert positive effects on patients with known CVD.\nObjectives\nTo systematically review the available evidence on the benefits and harms of DPP4i, GLP-1RA, and SGLT2i in people with established CVD, using network meta-analysis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 16 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials registers on 22 August 2020. We did not restrict by language or publication status.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DPP4i, GLP-1RA, or SGLT2i that included participants with established CVD. Outcome measures of interest were CVD mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF), and safety outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently screened the results of searches to identify eligible studies and extracted study data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted standard pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by pooling studies that we assessed to be of substantial homogeneity; subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also pursued to explore how study characteristics and potential effect modifiers could affect the robustness of our review findings. We analysed study data using the odds ratios (ORs) and log odds ratios (LORs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and credible intervals (Crls), where appropriate. We also performed narrative synthesis for included studies that were of substantial heterogeneity and that did not report quantitative data in a usable format, in order to discuss their individual findings and relevance to our review scope.\nMain results\nWe included 31 studies (287 records), of which we pooled data from 20 studies (129,465 participants) for our meta-analysis. The majority of the included studies were at low risk of bias, using Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. Among the 20 pooled studies, six investigated DPP4i, seven studied GLP-1RA, and the remaining seven trials evaluated SGLT2i. All outcome data described below were reported at the longest follow-up duration.\n1. DPP4i versus placebo\nOur review suggests that DPP4i do not reduce any risk of efficacy outcomes: CVD mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence), myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; high-certainty evidence), stroke (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). DPP4i probably do not reduce hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). DPP4i may not increase the likelihood of worsening renal function (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not increase the risk of bone fracture (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; moderate-certainty evidence) or hypoglycaemia (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). They are likely to increase the risk of pancreatitis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37; moderate-certainty evidence).\n2. GLP-1RA versus placebo\nOur findings indicate that GLP-1RA reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), and stroke (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA probably do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA may reduce the risk of worsening renal function (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence), but may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of GLP-1RA on hypoglycaemia and bone fractures.\n3. SGLT2i versus placebo\nThis review shows that SGLT2i probably reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), and reduce the risk of HF hospitalisation (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71; high-certainty evidence); they do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce the risk of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of treatment safety, SGLT2i probably reduce the incidence of worsening renal function (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably have no effect on hypoglycaemia (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence) or bone fracture (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence), and may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.86; low-certainty evidence).\n4. Network meta-analysis\nBecause we failed to identify direct comparisons between each class of the agents, findings from our network meta-analysis provided limited novel insights. Almost all findings from our network meta-analysis agree with those from the standard meta-analysis. GLP-1RA may not reduce the risk of stroke compared with placebo (OR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.0; moderate-certainty evidence), which showed similar odds estimates and wider 95% Crl compared with standard pairwise meta-analysis. Indirect estimates also supported comparison across all three classes. SGLT2i was ranked the best for CVD and all-cause mortality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFindings from both standard and network meta-analyses of moderate- to high-certainty evidence suggest that GLP-1RA and SGLT2i are likely to reduce the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality in people with established CVD; high-certainty evidence demonstrates that treatment with SGLT2i reduce the risk of hospitalisation for HF, while moderate-certainty evidence likely supports the use of GLP-1RA to reduce fatal and non-fatal stroke. Future studies conducted in the non-diabetic CVD population will reveal the mechanisms behind how these agents improve clinical outcomes irrespective of their glucose-lowering effects.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"GLP-1RA\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "medicines compared to placebo:\n- reduce the risk of death due to cardiovascular disease and from any cause slightly, and reduce the risk of stroke slightly;\n- probably do not reduce the risk of heart attack;\n- do not reduce the risk of hospitalisation due to heart failure;\n- may reduce the risk of worsening kidney function but may have no impact on pancreatitis;\n- uncertainty about effects on low blood sugar and bone fracture." } ]
query-laysum	7294	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFalls and fall-related injuries are common. A third of community-dwelling people aged over 65 years fall each year. Falls can have serious consequences including restricting activity or institutionalisation. This review updates the previous evidence for environmental interventions in fall prevention.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of environmental interventions (such as fall-hazard reduction, assistive technology, home modifications, and education) for preventing falls in older people living in the community.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, other databases, trial registers, and reference lists of systematic reviews to January 2021. We contacted researchers in the field to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of environmental interventions (such as reduction of fall hazards in the home, assistive devices) on falls in community-residing people aged 60 years and over.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was rate of falls.\nMain results\nWe included 22 studies from 10 countries involving 8463 community-residing older people. Participants were on average 78 years old, and 65% were women. For fall outcomes, five studies had high risk of bias and most studies had unclear risk of bias for one or more risk of bias domains. For other outcomes (e.g. fractures), most studies were at high risk of detection bias. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for high risk of bias, imprecision, and/or inconsistency.\nHome fall-hazard reduction (14 studies, 5830 participants)\nThese interventions aim to reduce falls by assessing fall hazards and making environmental safety adaptations (e.g. non-slip strips on steps) or behavioural strategies (e.g. avoiding clutter).\nHome fall-hazard interventions probably reduce the overall rate of falls by 26% (rate ratio (RaR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 0.91; 12 studies, 5293 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); based on a control group risk of 1319 falls per 1000 people a year, this is 343 (95% CI 118 to 514) fewer falls. However, these interventions were more effective in people who are selected for higher risk of falling, with a reduction of 38% (RaR 0.62, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.70; 9 studies, 1513 participants; 702 (95% CI 554 to 812) fewer falls based on a control risk of 1847 falls per 1000 people; high-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a reduction in rate of falls when people were not selected for fall risk (RaR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16; 6 studies, 3780 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nFindings were similar for the number of people experiencing one or more falls. These interventions probably reduce the overall risk by 11% (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; 12 studies, 5253 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); based on a risk of 519 per 1000 people per year, this is 57 (95% CI 15 to 93) fewer fallers. However, for people at higher risk of falling, we found a 26% decrease in risk (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.85; 9 studies, 1473 participants), but no decrease for unselected populations (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 6 studies, 3780 participants) (high-certainty evidence).\nThese interventions probably make little or no important difference to health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (standardised mean difference 0.09, 95% CI −0.10 to 0.27; 5 studies, 1848 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They may make little or no difference to the risk of fall-related fractures (RR 1.00, 95% 0.98 to 1.02; 2 studies, 1668 participants), fall-related hospitalisations (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.06; 3 studies, 325 participants), or in the rate of falls requiring medical attention (RaR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.43; 3 studies, 946 participants) (low-certainty evidence). The evidence for number of fallers requiring medical attention was unclear (2 studies, 216 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies reported no adverse events.\nAssistive technology\nVision improvement interventions may make little or no difference to the rate of falls (RaR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.50; 3 studies, 1489 participants) or people experiencing one or more falls (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50) (low-certainty evidence). We are unsure of the evidence for fall-related fractures (2 studies, 976 participants) and falls requiring medical attention (1 study, 276 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. There may be little or no difference in HRQoL (mean difference 0.40, 95% CI −1.12 to 1.92) or adverse events (falls while switching glasses; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02) (1 study, 597 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nResults for other assistive technology - footwear and foot devices, and self-care and assistive devices (5 studies, 651 participants) - were not pooled due to the diversity of interventions and contexts.\nEducation\nWe are uncertain whether an education intervention to reduce home fall hazards reduces the rate of falls or the number of people experiencing one or more falls (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). These interventions may make little or no difference to the risk of fall-related fractures (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 1 study, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nHome modifications\nWe found no trials of home modifications that measured falls as an outcome for task enablement and functional independence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found high-certainty evidence that home fall-hazard interventions are effective in reducing the rate of falls and the number of fallers when targeted to people at higher risk of falling, such as having had a fall in the past year and recently hospitalised or needing support with daily activities. There was evidence of no effect when interventions were targeted to people not selected for risk of falling. Further research is needed to examine the impact of intervention components, the effect of awareness raising, and participant-interventionist engagement on decision-making and adherence.\nVision improvement interventions may or may not impact the rate of falls. Further research is needed to answer clinical questions such as whether people should be given advice or take additional precautions when changing eye prescriptions, or whether the intervention is more effective when targeting people at higher risk of falls.\nThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether education interventions impact falls.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies that investigated different types of environmental fall-hazard programmes for older adults who live in the community. We compared and summarised the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods and sample sizes." } ]
query-laysum	7295	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nWhile laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered to be less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery resulting in overnight stay following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of local anaesthetic wound infiltration in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not known.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of local anaesthetic wound infiltration in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and to identify the best method of local anaesthetic wound infiltration with regards to the type of local anaesthetic, dosage, and time of administration of the local anaesthetic.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013 to identify studies of relevance to this review. We included randomised clinical trials for benefit and quasi-randomised and comparative non-randomised studies for treatment-related harms.\nSelection criteria\nOnly randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, trials comparing different local anaesthetic agents for local anaesthetic wound infiltration, and trials comparing the different times of local anaesthetic wound infiltration were considered for the review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analysis models using RevMan. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).\nMain results\nTwenty-six trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the review. All the 26 trials except one trial of 30 participants were at high risk of bias. Nineteen of the trials with 1263 randomised participants provided data for this review. Ten of the 19 trials compared local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus inactive control. One of the 19 trials compared local anaesthetic wound infiltration with two inactive controls, normal saline and no intervention. Two of the 19 trials had four arms comparing local anaesthetic wound infiltration with inactive controls in the presence and absence of co-interventions to decrease pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Four of the 19 trials had three or more arms that could be included for the comparison of local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus inactive control and different methods of local anaesthetic wound infiltration. The remaining two trials compared different methods of local anaesthetic wound infiltration.\nMost trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Seventeen trials randomised a total of 1095 participants to local anaesthetic wound infiltration (587 participants) versus no local anaesthetic wound infiltration (508 participants). Various anaesthetic agents were used but bupivacaine was the commonest local anaesthetic used. There was no mortality in either group in the seven trials that reported mortality (0/280 (0%) in local anaesthetic infiltration group versus 0/259 (0%) in control group). The effect of local anaesthetic on the proportion of people who developed serious adverse events was imprecise and compatible with increase or no difference in serious adverse events (seven trials; 539 participants; 2/280 (0.8%) in local anaesthetic group versus 1/259 (0.4%) in control; RR 2.00; 95% CI 0.19 to 21.59; very low quality evidence). None of the serious adverse events were related to local anaesthetic wound infiltration. None of the trials reported patient quality of life. The proportion of participants who were discharged as day surgery patients was higher in the local anaesthetic infiltration group than in the no local anaesthetic infiltration group (one trial; 97 participants; 33/50 (66.0%) in the local anaesthetic group versus 20/47 (42.6%) in the control group; RR 1.55; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.28; very low quality evidence). The effect of local anaesthetic on the length of hospital stay was compatible with a decrease, increase, or no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (four trials; 327 participants; MD -0.26 days; 95% CI -0.67 to 0.16; very low quality evidence). The pain scores as measured by the visual analogue scale (0 to 10 cm) were lower in the local anaesthetic infiltration group than the control group at 4 to 8 hours (13 trials; 806 participants; MD -1.33 cm on the VAS; 95% CI -1.54 to -1.12; very low quality evidence) and 9 to 24 hours (12 trials; 756 participants; MD -0.36 cm on the VAS; 95% CI -0.53 to -0.20; very low quality evidence). The effect of local anaesthetic on the time taken to return to normal activity between the two groups was imprecise and compatible with a decrease, increase, or no difference in the time taken to return to normal activity (two trials; 195 participants; MD 0.14 days; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.87; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported on return to work.\nFour trials randomised a total of 149 participants to local anaesthetic wound infiltration prior to skin incision (74 participants) versus local anaesthetic wound infiltration at the end of surgery (75 participants). Two trials randomised a total of 176 participants to four different local anaesthetics (bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, ropivacaine, neosaxitoxin). Although there were differences between the groups in some outcomes the changes were not consistent. There was no evidence to support the preference of one local anaesthetic over another or to prefer administration of local anaesthetic at a specific time compared with another.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSerious adverse events were rare in studies evaluating local anaesthetic wound infiltration (very low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that infiltration reduces pain in low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the clinical importance of this reduction in pain is likely to be small. Further randomised clinical trials at low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.\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": "About 10% to 15% of the adult western population have gallstones. Between 1% and 4% become symptomatic each year. Removal of the gallbladder (cholecystectomy) is the mainstay treatment for symptomatic gallstones. More than half a million cholecystectomies are performed per year in the United States alone. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (removal of the gallbladder through a keyhole, also known as a port) is now the preferred method of cholecystectomy. While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered to be less painful than open surgery, pain is one the major reasons for delayed hospital discharge after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Administration of local anaesthetics (drugs that numb part of the body, similar to the ones used by the dentist to prevent people from feeling pain) into the surgical wound (local anaesthetic wound infiltration) may be an effective way of decreasing pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the benefits and harms of local anaesthetic wound infiltration is not known. We sought to answer these questions by reviewing the medical literature and obtaining information from randomised clinical trials on the benefits related to the treatment. When conducted well, such studies provide the most accurate information on the best treatment. We also considered comparative non-randomised studies for treatment-related harms. Two authors searched the literature until February 2013 and obtained information from the studies thereby minimising errors." } ]
query-laysum	7296	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the strain of coronavirus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause serious illness in some people resulting in admission to intensive care units (ICU) and frequently, ventilatory support for acute respiratory failure. Evaluating ICU care, and what is effective in improving outcomes for these patients is critical. Care bundles, a small set of evidence-based interventions, delivered together consistently, may improve patient outcomes. To identify the extent of the available evidence on the use of care bundles in patients with COVID-19 in the ICU, the World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a scoping review to inform WHO guideline discussions. This review does not assess the effectiveness of the findings, assess risk of bias, or assess the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). As this review was commissioned to inform guideline discussions, it was done rapidly over a three-week period from 26 October to 18 November 2020.\nObjectives\nTo identify and describe the available evidence on the use of care bundles in the ICU for patients with COVID-19 or related conditions (acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) viral pneumonia or pneumonitis), or both. In carrying out the review the focus was on characterising the evidence base and not evaluating the effectiveness or safety of the care bundles or their component parts.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 26 October 2020.\nSelection criteria\nStudies of all designs that reported on patients who are critically ill with COVID-19, ARDS, viral pneumonia or pneumonitis, in the ICU setting, where a care bundle was implemented in providing care, were eligible for inclusion. One review author (VS) screened all records on title and abstract. A second review author (DR) checked 20% of excluded and included records; agreement was 99.4% and 100% respectively on exclude/include decisions. Two review authors (VS and DR) independently screened all records at full-text level. VS and DR resolved any disagreements through discussion and consensus, or referral to a third review author (AN) as required.\nData collection and analysis\nOne review author (VS) extracted the data and a second review author (DR) checked 20% of this for accuracy. As the review was not designed to synthesise effectiveness data, assess risk of bias, or characterise the certainty of the evidence (GRADE), we mapped the extracted data and presented them in tabular format based on the patient condition; that is patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, patients with ARDS, patients with any influenza or viral pneumonia, patients with severe respiratory failure, and patients with mixed conditions. We have also provided a narrative summary of the findings from the included studies.\nMain results\nWe included 21 studies and identified three ongoing studies. The studies were of variable designs and included a systematic review of standardised approaches to caring for critically ill patients in ICU, including but not exclusive to care bundles (1 study), a randomised trial (1 study), prospective and retrospective cohort studies (4 studies), before and after studies (7 studies), observational quality improvement reports (4 studies), case series/case reports (3 studies) and audit (1 study). The studies were conducted in eight countries, most commonly China (5 studies) and the USA (4 studies), were published between 1999 and 2020, and involved over 2000 participants in total. Studies categorised participant conditions patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 (7 studies), patients with ARDS (7 studies), patients with another influenza or viral pneumonia (5 studies), patients with severe respiratory failure (1 study), and patients with mixed conditions (1 study).\nThe care bundles described in the studies involved multiple diverse practices. Guidance on ventilator settings (10 studies), restrictive fluid management (8 studies), sedation (7 studies) and prone positioning (7 studies) were identified most frequently, while only one study mentioned chest X-ray.\nNone of the included studies reported the prespecified outcomes ICU-acquired weakness (muscle wasting, weight loss) and users' experience adapting care bundles. Of the remaining prespecified outcomes, 14 studies reported death in ICU, nine reported days of ventilation (or ventilator-free days), nine reported length of stay in ICU in days, five reported death in hospital, three reported length of stay in hospital in days, and three reported adherence to the bundle.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis scoping review has identified 21 studies on care bundle use in critically ill patients in ICU with COVID-19, ARDS, viral influenza or pneumonia and severe respiratory failure. The data for patients with COVID-19 specifically are limited, derived mainly from observational quality improvement or clinical experiential accounts. Research is required, urgently, to further assess care bundle use and optimal components of these bundles in this patient cohort. The care bundles described were also varied, with guidance on ventilator settings described in 10 care bundles, while chest X-ray was part mentioned in one care bundle in one study only. None of the studies identified in this scoping review measured users' experience of adapting care bundles. Optimising care bundle implementation requires that the components of the care bundle are collectively and consistently applied. Data on challenges, barriers and facilitators to implementation are needed. A formal synthesis of the outcome data presented in this review and a critical appraisal of the evidence is required by a subsequent effectiveness review. This subsequent review should further explore effect estimates across the included studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are care bundles?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Care bundles are a set of care practices that are carried out together (as a bundle) when delivering care to patients with the same condition or in the same healthcare setting. There are usually three to five practices in a bundle. Practices could include any aspect of patient care. For example, a bundle might include guidance on inserting breathing tubes, ventilator settings and care of ventilated patients. All the practices are ‘evidence-based’, that is, they are based on evidence that shows they are useful." } ]
query-laysum	7297	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFunctional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) has become a well-established approach for treating patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) refractory to medical management. However, the surgical outcome may be compromised by postoperative inflammation, polyposis and adhesions, which often require subsequent intervention. Bioabsorbable, steroid-eluting sinus stents are inserted into the nose, sinuses or both following surgery to prevent stenosis of the sinus openings during the postoperative healing period. The slow release of corticosteroid aims to decrease mucosal oedema and expedite wound healing. Whether a steroid-eluting stent offers any beneficial effects in terms of improving sinonasal symptoms has not been systematically reviewed.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and efficacy of steroid-eluting sinus stent placement in CRS patients after FESS.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group (CENTDG) Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the CENTDG Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 4); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Clinicaltrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 May 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing steroid-eluting sinus stents with non-steroid-eluting sinus stents, nasal packing or no treatment in adult CRS patients undergoing FESS.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nWe identified no RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Among the 159 records retrieved using our search strategy, 21 trials had the potential to be included given that they had tested sinus stents, spacers and packing materials for patients with CRS undergoing FESS. However, we excluded these trials from the review because they met some but not all of the inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are unable to provide evidence to establish whether steroid-eluting sinus stents have potential advantages and disadvantages for patients with CRS undergoing FESS. Future, high-quality RCTs are needed to assess whether or not steroid-eluting sinus stents confer any beneficial effects, over those of surgery alone, when compared to non-steroid sinus stents.\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 met our inclusion criteria." } ]
query-laysum	7298	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInfectious mononucleosis, also known as glandular fever or the kissing disease, is a benign lymphoproliferative disorder. It is a viral infection caused by the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), a ubiquitous herpes virus that is found in all human societies and cultures. Epidemiological studies show that over 95% of adults worldwide have been infected with EBV. Most cases of symptomatic infectious mononucleosis occur between the ages of 15 and 24 years. It is transmitted through close contact with an EBV shedder, contact with infected saliva or, less commonly, through sexual contact, blood transfusions or by sharing utensils; however, transmission actually occurs less than 10% of the time. Precautions are not needed to prevent transmission because of the high percentage of seropositivity for EBV. Infectious mononucleosis is self-limiting and typically lasts for two to three weeks. Nevertheless, symptoms can last for weeks and occasionally months.\nSymptoms include fever, lymphadenopathy, pharyngitis, hepatosplenomegaly and fatigue. Symptom relief and rest are commonly recommended treatments. Steroids have been used for their anti-inflammatory effects, but there are no universal criteria for their use.\nObjectives\nThe objectives of the review were to determine the efficacy and safety of steroid therapy versus placebo, usual care or different drug therapies for symptom control in infectious mononucleosis.\nSearch methods\nFor this 2015 update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2015) and EMBASE (January 1974 to August 2015). We also searched trials registries, however we did not identify any new relevant completed or ongoing trials for inclusion. We combined the MEDLINE search with the Cochrane search strategy for identifying randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We adapted the search terms when searching EMBASE.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs comparing the effectiveness of steroids with placebo, usual care, or other interventions for symptom control for people with documented infectious mononucleosis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nFor this 2015 update, we did not identify any new RCTs for inclusion. The previous version of the review included seven trials with a total of 362 participants. Four trials compared the effectiveness of a steroid to placebo for short-term symptom control in glandular fever, one to aspirin, and two trials explored the effects of steroids in conjunction with an antiviral. Heterogeneity between trials prevented a combined analysis.\nTrials under-reported methodological design features. Three trials did not adequately describe sequence generation for randomisation. Four trials provided adequate details of allocation concealment. All trials were double-blind but four were not specific as to who was blinded. Loss to follow-up was under-reported in four trials, making it difficult to exclude attrition bias. The risk of selective reporting in the included trials was unclear.\nAcross the trials, no benefit was found in 8/10 assessments of health improvement. Two trials found benefit of steroid therapy over placebo in reducing sore throat at 12 hours (eight-day course odds ratio (OR) 21.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.94 to 227.20; one-dose OR 4.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 16.32), but the benefit was not maintained.\nIn combination with an antiviral drug, participants in the steroid group had less pharyngeal discomfort between days two to four (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.08) compared to placebo. Across the trials the effects on other common symptoms were less clear. Two trials set out to measure safety; they documented no major adverse effects. In two other trials adverse events were reported, including respiratory distress and acute onset of diabetes. However, the association of the events with the steroid is not definite.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to the efficacy of steroids for symptom control in infectious mononucleosis. There is a lack of research on the side effects and long-term complications.\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 included trials was generally poor. We cannot know the exact effect of using steroids for glandular fever." } ]
query-laysum	7299	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe main complication of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunt surgery is shunt infection. Prevention of these shunt infections consists of the perioperative use of antibiotics that can be administered in five different ways: orally; intravenously; intrathecally; topically; and via the implantation of antibiotic-impregnated shunt catheters.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of different routes of antibiotic prophylaxis (i.e. oral, intravenous, intrathecal, topical and via antibiotic-impregnated shunt catheters) on CSF-shunt infections in persons treated for hydrocephalus using internalised CSF shunts.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted a systematic electronic search without restrictions on language, date or publication type. We performed the search on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and Embase, with the help of the Information Specialist of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group. The search was performed in January 2018.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that studied the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis, in any dose or administration route, for the prevention of CSF-shunt infection in patients that were treated with an internal cerebrospinal fluid shunt. Patients with external shunts were not eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from included studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by referral to an independent researcher within our department when necessary. Analyses were also performed by at least two authors.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 11 small randomised controlled trials, containing 1109 participants, in this systematic review. Three of these studies included solely children, and the remaining eight included participants of all ages. Most studies were limited to the evaluation of ventriculoperitoneal shunts. However, five studies included participants with ventriculoatrial shunts, of which one study contained four participants with a subduroperitoneal shunt. We judged four out of 11 (36%) trials at unclear risk of bias, while the remaining seven trials (64%) scored high risk of bias in one or more of the components assessed.\nWe analysed all included studies in order to estimate the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on the proportion of shunt infections regardless of administration route. Although the quality of evidence in these studies was low, there may be a positive effect of antibiotic prophylaxis on the number of participants who had shunt infections (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84), meaning a 55% reduction in the number of participants who had shunt infection compared with standard care or placebo.\nWithin the different administration routes, only within intravenous administration of antibiotic prophylaxis there may be evidence of an effect on the risk of shunt infections (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.90). However, this was the only route that contained more than two studies (8 studies; 797 participants). Evidence was uncertain for both, intrathecal administration of antibiotics (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.93, 2 studies; 797 participants; low quality evidence) and antibiotic impregnated catheters (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.24, 1 study; 110 participants; very low quality evidence)\nAuthors' conclusions\nAntibiotic prophylaxis may have a positive effect on lowering the number of participants who had shunt infections. However, the quality of included studies was low and the effect is not consistent within the different routes of administration that have been analysed. It is therefore uncertain whether prevention of shunt infection varies by different antibiotic agents, different administration routes, timing and doses; or by characteristics of patients, e.g. children and adults. The results of the review should be seen as hypothesis-generating rather than definitive, and the results should be confirmed in adequately powered trials or large multicentre studies in order to obtain high-quality evidence in the field of ventricular shunt infection prevention.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "People with hydrocephalus (an excessive amount of cerebrospinal fluid within the brain, due to a blockage within their brain cavities or in their reabsorbing system) can be treated by implanting a cerebrospinal fluid shunt. This shunt is a tube running from the brain to either the heart or the abdomen in order to drain the excessive amount of cerebrospinal fluid to other body compartments where it will be reabsorbed. One of the most common problems after the implantation is infection of the shunt. Patients become sick and in most cases the shunt needs to be removed and a new one needs to be implanted after the patient has recovered. In order to reduce the number of infections surgeons administer antibiotics before, during or after surgery, or in various combinations, in order to protect the patient against bacteria that can infect the shunt. These antibiotics can be administered in different ways: orally; intravenously; directly into the brain cavities; directly on the shunt; and via the implantation of antibiotic-impregnated shunt catheters." } ]
query-laysum	7300	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nKeratoconus is a condition of the eye that affects approximately 1 in 2000 people. The disease leads to a gradual increase in corneal curvature and decrease in visual acuity with consequent impact on quality of life. Collagen cross-linking (CXL) with ultraviolet A (UVA) light and riboflavin (vitamin B2) is a relatively new treatment that has been reported to slow or halt the progression of the disease in its early stages.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to assess whether there is evidence that CXL is an effective and safe treatment for halting the progression of keratoconus compared to no treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to August 2014), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to August 2014), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 28 August 2014.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where CXL with UVA light and riboflavin was used to treat people with keratoconus and was compared to no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the search results, assessed trial quality, and extracted data using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were two indicators of progression at 12 months: increase in maximum keratometry of 1.5 dioptres (D) or more and deterioration in uncorrected visual acuity of more than 0.2 logMAR.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs conducted in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States that enrolled a total of 225 eyes and analysed 219 eyes. The total number of people enrolled was not clear in two of the studies. Only adults were enrolled into these studies. Out of the eyes analysed, 119 had CXL (all using the epithelium-off technique) and 100 served as controls. One of these studies only reported comparative data on review outcomes. All three studies were at high risk for performance bias (lack of masking), detection bias (only one trial attempted to mask outcome assessment), and attrition bias (incomplete follow-up). It was not possible to pool data due to differences in measuring and reporting outcomes. We identified a further three unpublished trials that potentially had enrolled a total of 195 participants.\nThere was limited evidence on the risk of progression. Analysis of the first few participants followed up to one year in one study suggested that eyes given CXL were less likely to have an increase in maximum keratometry of 1.5 D or more at 12 months compared to eyes given no treatment, but the confidence intervals (CI) were wide and compatible with no effect or more progression in the CXL group (risk ratio (RR) 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.00, 19 eyes). The same study reported the number of eyes with an increase of 2 D or more at 36 months in the whole cohort with a RR of 0.03 favouring CXL (95% CI 0.00 to 0.43, 94 eyes). Another study reported \"progression\" at 18 months using a different definition; people receiving CXL were less likely to progress, but again the effect was uncertain (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.61, 44 eyes). We judged this to be very low-quality evidence due to the risk of bias of included studies, imprecision, indirectness and publication bias but noted that the size of the potential effect was large.\nOn average, treated eyes had a less steep cornea (approximately 2 D less steep) (mean difference (MD) -1.92, 95% CI -2.54 to -1.30, 94 eyes, 1 RCT, very low-quality evidence) and better uncorrected visual acuity (approximately 2 lines or 10 letters better) (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.09, 94 eyes, 1 RCT, very low-quality evidence) at 12 months. None of the studies reported loss of 0.2 logMAR acuity. The data on corneal thickness were inconsistent. There were no data available on quality of life or costs. Adverse effects were not uncommon but mostly transient and of low clinical significance. In one trial, 3 out of 12 participants treated with CXL had an adverse effect including corneal oedema, anterior chamber inflammation, and recurrent corneal erosions. In one trial at 3 years 3 out of 50 participants experienced adverse events including mild diffuse corneal oedema and paracentral infiltrate, peripheral corneal vascularisation, and subepithelial infiltrates and anterior chamber inflammation. No adverse effects were reported in the control groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence for the use of CXL in the management of keratoconus is limited due the lack of properly conducted RCTs.\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": "Keratoconus is a condition where the transparent front of the eye (cornea) gets thinner and begins to bulge. This leads to vision problems, usually short-sightedness (distant objects appear blurred). The condition is more common in children and young adults and can deteriorate over time. Initially glasses and contact lenses can help. If the disease progresses, the only option may be a corneal transplant.\nCXL is a new treatment for keratoconus. The eye doctor removes the outer layer of the cornea, puts in vitamin B2 eye drops, and then treats the eye with ultraviolet A light radiation. This can be done in outpatients and takes about an hour." } ]
query-laysum	7301	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAdherence to treatment, including inhaled therapies, is low in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). Although psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF have been developed, no previous published systematic review has evaluated the evidence for efficacy of these interventions.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective of the review was to assess the efficacy of psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). The secondary objective was to establish the most effective components, or behaviour change techniques (BCTs), used in these interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, which is compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books.\nWe also searched databases (PubMed; PsycINFO; EBSCO; Scopus; OpenGrey), trials registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov), and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, with no restrictions on language, year or publication status.\nDate of search: 7 August 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF of any age, or comparing psychological interventions with usual care. We included quasi-RCTs if we could reasonably assume that the baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and completed data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and BCT coding (using the BCT Taxonomy v1) for all included trials. We resolved any discrepancies by discussion, or by consultation with a third review author as necessary. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 10 trials (1642 participants) in the review (children and adolescents in four trials; adults in five trials; and children and adults in one trial). Nine trials compared a psychological intervention with usual care; we could combine data from some of these in a number of quantitative analyses. One trial compared a psychological intervention with an active comparator (education plus problem-solving (EPS)). We identified five ongoing trials.\nPsychological interventions were generally multi-component and complex, containing an average of 9.6 BCTs (range 1 to 28). The two most commonly used BCTs included 'problem-solving' and 'instruction on how to perform the behaviour'. Interventions varied in their type, content and mode of delivery. They included a problem-solving intervention; a paper-based self-management workbook; a telehealth intervention; a group training programme; a digital intervention comprising medication reminders and lung function self-monitoring; a life-coaching intervention; a motivational interviewing (MI) intervention; a brief MI intervention (behaviour change counselling); and a digital intervention combined with behaviour change sessions. Intervention duration ranged from 10 weeks to 12 months. Assessment time points ranged from six to eight weeks up to 23 months.\nPsychological interventions compared with usual care\nWe report data here for the 'over six months and up to 12 months' time point. We found that psychological interventions probably improve adherence to inhaled therapies (primary outcome) in people with CF compared with usual care (mean difference (MD) 9.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.60 to 10.40; 1 study, 588 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups in our second primary outcome, treatment-related adverse events: anxiety (MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.00; 1 study, 535 participants), or depression (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.60; 1 study, 534 participants), although this was low-certainty evidence. For our secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of a difference between groups in terms of lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted MD 1.40, 95% CI -0.20 to 3.00; 1 study, 556 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of pulmonary exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.11; 1 study, 607 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or respiratory symptoms (MD 0.70, 95% CI -2.40 to 3.80; 1 study, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, psychological interventions may improve treatment burden (MD 3.90, 95% CI 1.20 to 6.60; 1 study, 539 participants; low-certainty evidence). The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from low to moderate across these outcomes. Reasons for downgrading included indirectness (current evidence included adults only whereas our review question was broader and focused on people of any age) and lack of blinding of outcome assessors.\nPsychological interventions compared with an active comparator\nFor this comparison the overall certainty of evidence was very low, based on one trial (n = 128) comparing an MI intervention to EPS for 12 months. We are uncertain whether an MI intervention, compared with EPS, improves adherence to inhaled therapies, lung function, or quality of life in people with CF, or whether there is an effect on pulmonary exacerbations. The included trial for this comparison did not report on treatment-related adverse events (anxiety and depression). We downgraded all reported outcomes due to small participant numbers, indirectness (trials included only adults), and unclear risk of bias (e.g. selection and attrition bias).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the limited quantity of trials included in this review, as well as the clinical and methodological heterogeneity, it was not possible to identify an overall intervention effect using meta-analysis. Some moderate-certainty evidence suggests that psychological interventions (compared with usual care) probably improve adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF, without increasing treatment-related adverse events, anxiety and depression (low-certainty evidence). In future review updates (with ongoing trial results included), we hope to be able to establish the most effective BCTs (or 'active ingredients') of interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF.\nWherever possible, investigators should make use of the most objective measures of adherence available (e.g. data-logging nebulisers) to accurately determine intervention effects. Outcome reporting needs to be improved to enable combining or separation of measures as appropriate. Likewise, trial reporting needs to include details of intervention content (e.g. BCTs used); duration; intensity; and fidelity. Large trials with a longer follow-up period (e.g. 12 months) are needed in children with CF. Additionally, more research is needed to determine how to support adherence in 'under-served' CF populations.\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": "CF is a chronic, genetic condition, usually diagnosed at birth through newborn screening. People with CF experience recurrent chest infections due to the build-up of thick, sticky mucus (or sputum) in their lungs and digestive systems. Inhaled treatments are usually prescribed to either thin sputum (making it easier to clear or cough up), or to treat and control bacteria in the lungs (to reduce infections).\nPeople living with any long-term health condition often struggle to take the number of treatments they are prescribed, and this is no different in CF." } ]
query-laysum	7302	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEven low levels of substance misuse by people with a severe mental illness can have detrimental effects.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for reduction in substance use in people with a serious mental illness compared with standard care.\nSearch methods\nThe Information Specialist of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (CSG) searched the CSG Trials Register (2 May 2018), which is based on regular searches of major medical and scientific databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions for substance misuse with standard care in people with serious mental illness.\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors independently selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. Where meta-analyses were possible, we pooled data using a random-effects model. Using the GRADE approach, we identified seven patient-centred outcomes and assessed the quality of evidence for these within each comparison.\nMain results\nOur review now includes 41 trials with a total of 4024 participants. We have identified nine comparisons within the included trials and present a summary of our main findings for seven of these below. We were unable to summarise many findings due to skewed data or because trials did not measure the outcome of interest. In general, evidence was rated as low- or very-low quality due to high or unclear risks of bias because of poor trial methods, or inadequately reported methods, and imprecision due to small sample sizes, low event rates and wide confidence intervals.\n1. Integrated models of care versus standard care (36 months)\nNo clear differences were found between treatment groups for loss to treatment (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.45; participants = 603; studies = 3; low-quality evidence), death (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.57; participants = 421; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), alcohol use (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.56; participants = 143; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), substance use (drug) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25; participants = 85; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), global assessment of functioning (GAF) scores (MD 0.40, 95% CI -2.47 to 3.27; participants = 170; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), or general life satisfaction (QOLI) scores (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.38; participants = 373; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence).\n2. Non-integrated models of care versus standard care\nThere was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at 12 months (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; participants = 134; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence).\n3. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus standard care\nThere was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.86; participants = 152; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), cannabis use at six months (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.15; participants = 47; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or mental state insight (IS) scores by three months (MD 0.52, 95% CI -0.78 to 1.82; participants = 105; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).\n4. Contingency management versus standard care\nWe found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.11; participants = 255; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence), number of stimulant positive urine tests at six months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06; participants = 176; studies = 1) or hospitalisations (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.93; participants = 176; studies = 1); both low-quality evidence.\n5. Motivational interviewing (MI) versus standard care\nWe found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at six months (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.64; participants = 62; studies = 1). A clear difference, favouring MI, was observed for abstaining from alcohol (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75; participants = 28; studies = 1) but not other substances (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.42; participants = 89; studies = 1), and no differences were observed in mental state general severity (SCL-90-R) scores (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.21; participants = 30; studies = 1). All very low-quality evidence.\n6. Skills training versus standard care\nAt 12 months, there were no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 10.10; participants = 122; studies = 3) or death (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.42; participants = 121; studies = 1). Very low-quality, and low-quality evidence, respectively.\n7. CBT + MI versus standard care\nAt 12 months, there was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.59; participants = 327; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), number of deaths (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.76; participants = 603; studies = 4; low-quality evidence), relapse (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.04; participants = 36; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence), or GAF scores (MD 1.24, 95% CI -1.86 to 4.34; participants = 445; studies = 4; very low-quality evidence). There was also no clear difference in reduction of drug use by six months (MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.60; participants = 119; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe included 41 RCTs but were unable to use much data for analyses. There is currently no high-quality evidence to support any one psychosocial treatment over standard care for important outcomes such as remaining in treatment, reduction in substance use or improving mental or global state in people with serious mental illnesses and substance misuse. Furthermore, methodological difficulties exist which hinder pooling and interpreting results. Further high-quality trials are required which address these concerns and improve the evidence in this important area.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The review authors searched for studies that had been published up to October 2018." } ]
query-laysum	7303	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDysarthria is an acquired speech disorder following neurological injury that reduces intelligibility of speech due to weak, imprecise, slow and/or unco-ordinated muscle control. The impact of dysarthria goes beyond communication and affects psychosocial functioning. This is an update of a review previously published in 2005. The scope has been broadened to include additional interventions, and the title amended accordingly.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions to improve dysarthric speech following stroke and other non-progressive adult-acquired brain injury such as trauma, infection, tumour and surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (May 2016), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 6 May 2016. We also searched Linguistics and Language Behavioral Abstracts (LLBA) (1976 to November 2016) and PsycINFO (1800 to September 2016). To identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched major trials registers: WHO ICTRP, the ISRCTN registry, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted academic institutions and other researchers regarding other published, unpublished or ongoing trials. We did not impose any language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dysarthria interventions with 1) no intervention, 2) another intervention for dysarthria (this intervention may differ in methodology, timing of delivery, duration, frequency or theory), or 3) an attention control.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We attempted to contact study authors for clarification and missing data as required. We calculated standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI), using a random-effects model, and performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of methodological quality. We planned to conduct subgroup analyses for underlying clinical conditions.\nMain results\nWe included five small trials that randomised a total of 234 participants. Two studies were assessed as low risk of bias; none of the included studies were adequately powered. Two studies used an attention control and three studies compared to an alternative intervention, which in all cases was one intervention versus usual care intervention. The searches we carried out did not find any trials comparing an intervention with no intervention. The searches did not find any trials of an intervention that compared variations in timing, dose, or intensity of treatment using the same intervention. Four studies included only people with stroke; one included mostly people with stroke, but also those with brain injury. Three studies delivered interventions in the first few months after stroke; two recruited people with chronic dysarthria. Three studies evaluated behavioural interventions, one investigated acupuncture and another transcranial magnetic stimulation. One study included people with dysarthria within a broader trial of people with impaired communication.\nOur primary analysis of a persisting (three to nine months post-intervention) effect at the activity level of measurement found no evidence in favour of dysarthria intervention compared with any control (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.55; 3 trials, 116 participants, GRADE: low quality, I² = 0%). Findings from sensitivity analysis of studies at low risk of bias were similar, with a slightly wider confidence interval and low heterogeneity (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.73, I² = 32%; 2 trials, 92 participants, GRADE: low quality). Subgroup analysis results for stroke were similar to the primary analysis because few non-stroke participants had been recruited to trials (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.54, I² = 0%; 3 trials, 106 participants, GRADE: low quality).\nSimilar results emerged from most of the secondary analyses. There was no evidence of a persisting effect at the impairment (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.91 to 1.06, I² = 70%; 2 trials, 56 participants, GRADE: very low quality) or participation level (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.33, I² = 0%; 2 trials, 79 participants, GRADE: low quality) but substantial heterogeneity on the former. Analyses of immediate post-intervention outcomes provided no evidence of any short-term benefit on activity (SMD 0.29, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.66, I² = 0%; 3 trials, 117 participants, GRADE: very low quality); or participation (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.94 to 0.45; 1 study, 32 participants) levels of measurement.\nThere was a statistically significant effect favouring intervention at the immediate, impairment level of measurement (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.92, P = 0.04, I² = 0%; 4 trials, 99 participants, GRADE: very low quality) but only one of these four trials had a low risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no definitive, adequately powered RCTs of interventions for people with dysarthria. We found limited evidence to suggest there may be an immediate beneficial effect on impairment level measures; more, higher quality research is needed to confirm this finding.\nAlthough we evaluated five studies, the benefits and risks of interventions remain unknown and the emerging evidence justifies the need for adequately powered clinical trials into this condition.\nPeople with dysarthria after stroke or brain injury should continue to receive rehabilitation according to clinical guidelines.\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 few randomised controlled trials of dysarthria treatment, and those that have been conducted involved small numbers of participants, or were not adequately designed or had serious reporting flaws.\nWe compared many different measures at various time points after treatment, so caution is recommended when interpreting results. We found no evidence of effectiveness on most measures, including long-lasting improvement in every day communication abilities. A positive finding was short-term improvement in muscle movement, such as tongue and lip control. However, this result is not reliable because it was based on small numbers of people, and we found concerns about the conduct and reporting of some trials. This finding needs to be investigated in a bigger, better designed trial.\nWe found insufficient evidence to tell us whether any one treatment is better than any other or whether treatment is better than general support, or no treatment. We found no studies that examined timing, duration, or intensity of treatment. This is a clinically important question and should be considered in future trials." } ]
query-laysum	7304	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nImbalance of gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) and related modulators has been implicated as an important factor in the pathogenesis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which is also known as motor neuron disease (MND). In this context, the role and mechanism of action of gabapentin and baclofen have been extensively investigated, although with conflicting results. This is the first systematic review to assess clinical trials of GABA modulators for the treatment of ALS.\nObjectives\nTo examine the efficacy of gabapentin, baclofen, or other GABA modulators in delaying the progression of ALS, and to evaluate adverse effects of these interventions.\nSearch methods\nOn 16 August 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, AMED, and LILACS. In addition, we checked the bibliographies of the trials found in order to identify any other trials, and contacted trial authors to identify relevant unpublished results or additional clinical trials. On 30 August 2016, we searched two clinical trials registries.\nSelection criteria\nTypes of studies: double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs\nTypes of participants: adults with a diagnosis of probable or definite ALS\nTypes of interventions: gabapentin, baclofen, or other GABA modulators compared with placebo, no treatment, or each other\nPrimary outcome: survival at one year from study enrollment\nSecondary outcomes: individual rate of decline of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), expressed as arm megascore; rate of decline of per cent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC); rate of decline of ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS); health-related quality of life; survival evaluated by pooling hazards; and adverse events\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently checked titles and abstracts identified by the searches. The review authors obtained and independently analyzed original individual participant data from each included study; additional review authors and the Cochrane Neuromuscular Managing Editor checked the outcome data. Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias in included studies.\nMain results\nWe identified two double-blind RCTs of gabapentin treatment in ALS for inclusion in this review. We found no eligible RCTs of baclofen or other GABA modulators. The selected studies were phase II and phase III trials, which lasted six and nine months, respectively. They were highly comparable because both were comparisons of oral gabapentin and placebo, performed by the same investigators. The trials enrolled 355 participants with ALS: 80 in the gabapentin group and 72 in the placebo group in the first (phase II) trial and 101 in the gabapentin group and 102 in the placebo group in the second (phase III) trial. Neither trial was long enough to report survival at one year, which was our primary outcome. We found little or no difference in estimated one-year survival between the treated group and the placebo group (78% versus 77%, P = 0.63 by log-rank test; high-quality evidence). We also found little or no difference in the rate of decline of MVIC expressed as arm megascore, or rate of FVC decline (high-quality evidence). One trial investigated monthly decline in the ALSFRS and quality of life measured using the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) and found little or no difference between groups (moderate-quality evidence). The trials reported similar adverse events. Complaints that were clearly elevated in those taking gabapentin, based on analyses of the combined data, were light-headedness, drowsiness, and limb swelling (high-quality evidence). Fatigue and falls occurred more frequently with gabapentin than with placebo in one trial, but when we combined the data for fatigue from both trials, there was no clear difference between the groups. We assessed the overall risk of bias in the included trials as low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAccording to high-quality evidence, gabapentin is not effective in treating ALS. It does not extend survival, slow the rate of decline of muscle strength, respiratory function and, based on moderate-quality evidence, probably does not improve quality of life or slow monthly decline in the ALSFRS. Other GABA modulators have not been studied in randomized trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "A systematic search of the medical literature found two randomized trials of gabapentin compared with placebo (inactive treatment). The same team of scientists performed both trials, which were sponsored by the manufacturer. The trials involved a total of 355 people with ALS. Treatment with gabapentin lasted six and nine months. We found no trials of baclofen or other GABA modulators in ALS that met our selection criteria. We assessed the gabapentin trials as well run and well conducted." } ]
query-laysum	7305	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe insertion of a lumbar puncture needle or epidural catheter may be associated with peri- and post-procedural bleeding. People who require this procedure may have disorders of coagulation as a result of their underlying illness, co-morbidities or the effects of treatment. Clinical practice in some institutions is to mitigate the risk of bleeding in these patients by prophylactically transfusing plasma in order to correct clotting factor deficiencies prior to the procedure. However, plasma transfusion is not without risk, and it remains unclear whether this intervention is associated with reduced rates of bleeding or other clinically-meaningful outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of different prophylactic plasma transfusion regimens prior to insertion of a lumbar puncture needle or epidural catheter in people with abnormal coagulation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (non-RCT) and controlled before-after studies (CBAs) in CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and five other electronic databases as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for ongoing trials to 9 January 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include RCTs, non-RCTs, and CBAs involving transfusions of plasma given to prevent bleeding in people of any age with a coagulopathy requiring insertion of a lumbar puncture needle or epidural catheter. If identified, we would have excluded uncontrolled studies, cross-sectional studies and case-control studies. We would only have included cluster-RCTs, non-randomised cluster trials, and CBAs with at least two intervention sites and two control sites. In studies with only one intervention or control site, the intervention (or comparison) is completely confounded by study site making it difficult to attribute any observed differences to the intervention rather than to other site-specific variables.\nWe planned to exclude people with haemophilia as they should be treated with the appropriate factor concentrate. We also planned to exclude people on warfarin as guidelines recommend the use of prothrombin complex concentrate for emergency reversal of warfarin.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe identified no completed or ongoing RCTs, non-RCTs, or CBAs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence from RCTs, non-RCTs, and CBAs to determine whether plasma transfusions are required prior to insertion of a lumbar puncture needle or epidural catheter, and, if plasma transfusions are required, what is the degree of coagulopathy at which they should be given. We would need to design a study with at least 47,030 participants to be able to detect an increase in the number of people who had bleeding after lumbar puncture or epidural anaesthetic from 1 in 1000 to 2 in 1000.\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 did not assess the quality of the evidence because there were no included studies." } ]
query-laysum	7306	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOsteoporosis is a disorder of bone mineralisation occurring in about one third of adults with cystic fibrosis. Bisphosphonates can increase bone mineral density and decrease the risk of new fractures in post-menopausal women and people receiving long-term oral corticosteroids. This is an updated version of a previous review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of bisphosphonates on the frequency of fractures, bone mineral density, quality of life, adverse events, trial withdrawals, and survival in people with cystic fibrosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register of references (identified from electronic database searches and hand searches of journals and abstract books) on 5 May 2022.\nWe performed additional searches of PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) on 5 May 2022.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of at least six months duration studying bisphosphonates in people with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nAuthors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. Trial investigators were contacted to obtain missing data. We judged the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included nine trials with a total of 385 participants (272 adults and 113 children (aged five to 18 years)). Trial durations ranged from six months to two years. Only two of the studies were considered to have a low risk of bias for all the domains.\nBisphosphonates compared to control in people with cystic fibrosis who have not had a lung transplant\nSeven trials included only adult participants without lung transplants, one trial included both adults and children without lung transplantation (total of 238 adults and 113 children). We analysed adults (n = 238) and children (n = 113) separately.\nAdults\nThree trials assessed intravenous bisphosphonates (one assessed pamidronate and two assessed zoledronate) and five trials assessed oral bisphosphonates (one assessed risedronate and four assessed alendronate). Bisphosphonates were compared to either placebo or calcium (with or without additional vitamin D). Data showed no difference between treatment or control groups in new vertebral fractures at 12 months (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 2.09; 5 trials, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and two trials (44 participants) reported no vertebral fractures at 24 months. There was no difference in non-vertebral fractures at 12 months (OR 2.11, 95% CI 0.18 to 25.35; 4 trials, 95 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and again two trials (44 participants) reported no non-vertebral fractures at 24 months. There was no difference in total fractures between groups at 12 months (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.50; 5 trials, 142 participants) and no fractures were reported in two trials (44 participants) at 24 months. At 12 months, bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density at the lumbar spine (mean difference (MD) 6.31, 95% CI 5.39 to 7.22; 6 trials, 171 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at the hip or femur (MD 4.41, 95% 3.44 to 5.37; 5 trials, 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in quality of life scores at 12 months (1 trial, 47 participants; low-certainty evidence), but bisphosphonates probably led to more adverse events (bone pain) at 12 months (OR 8.49, 95% CI 3.20 to 22.56; 7 trials, 206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nChildren\nThe single trial in 113 children compared oral alendronate to placebo. We graded all evidence as low certainty. At 12 months we found no difference between treatment and placebo in new vertebral fractures (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.13; 1 trial, 113 participants) and non-vertebral fractures (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.04; 1 trial, 113 participants). There was also no difference in total fractures (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.61; 1 trial, 113 participants). Bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density at the lumbar spine at 12 months (MD 14.50, 95% CI 12.91 to 16.09). There was no difference in bone or muscle pain (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.22), fever (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.22) or gastrointestinal adverse events (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.26). The trial did not measure bone mineral density at the hip/femur or report on quality of life.\nBisphosphonates compared to control in people with cystic fibrosis who have had a lung transplant\nOne trial of 34 adults who had undergone lung transplantation compared intravenous pamidronate to no bisphosphonate treatment. It did not report at 12 months and we report the 24-month data (not assessed by GRADE). There was no difference in the number of fractures, either vertebral or non-vertebral. However, bone mineral density increased with treatment at the lumbar spine (MD 6.20, 95% CI 4.28 to 8.12) and femur (MD 7.90, 95% CI 5.78 to 10.02). No participants in either group reported either bone pain or fever. The trial did not measure quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOral and intravenous bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density in people with cystic fibrosis, but there are insufficient data to determine whether treatment reduces fractures. Severe bone pain and flu-like symptoms may occur with intravenous bisphosphonates.\nBefore any firm conclusions can be drawn, trials in larger populations, including children, and of longer duration are needed to determine effects on fracture rate and survival. Additional trials are needed to determine if bone pain is more common or severe (or both) with the more potent zoledronate and if corticosteroids can ameliorate or prevent these adverse events. Future trials should also assess gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with oral bisphosphonates.\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": "Bisphosphonates consistently increased BMD in adults at the lumbar spine and hip regions. It also increased BMD in children at the lumbar spine. Treatment with bisphosphonates did not appear to reduce the rates of fractures (either in the spine or elsewhere) or deaths in adults or children. However, this may be related to the small numbers of participants involved and the short duration of the trials. Severe bone pain and flu-like symptoms were commonly linked to intravenous bisphosphonates, especially in people not using corticosteroids. More research is needed to assess the effect of pre-treatment with corticosteroids. Additional trials are needed to determine if bone pain is more common or severe (or both) with the stronger drug zoledronate and if corticosteroids lessen or prevent these adverse events. Additional trials should also assess gastrointestinal adverse effects in the stomach and digestive tract which are linked to oral bisphosphonates. Trials with larger numbers of participants with longer follow-up are needed to show how bisphosphonates affect fracture rate and survival. More trials including children with cystic fibrosis should be undertaken to better understand the effects, benefits and harms these drugs may have on them.\nBisphosphonates compared to control in people with CF who have not had a lung transplant\nAdults\nFive trials (142 participants) reported no difference between treatment or control groups in new vertebral or non-vertebral fractures at 12 months and two trials (44 participants) reported no fractures at 24 months. At 12 months, results from six trials (171 participants) showed bisphosphonates may increase BMD at the lumbar spine and five trials (155 participants) reported the same effect on BMD at the hip or femur. There was no clear difference in quality of life (QoL) scores at 12 months, but bisphosphonates probably led to more bone pain at 12 months as reported by seven trials (206 participants).\nChildren\nAt 12 months we found no difference between treatment and placebo in new vertebral or non-vertebral fractures. Bisphosphonates may increase BMD at the lumbar spine at 12 months. There was no difference in bone or muscle pain, in fever or in gastrointestinal side effects. The trial did not measure BMD at the hip/femur or report on QoL.\nBisphosphonates compared to control in people with CF who have had a lung transplant\nThis trial only reported results at 24 months. There was no difference in the number of fractures, either vertebral or non-vertebral, but BMD increased with treatment at the lumbar spine and femur. No one in either group reported either bone pain or fever. The trial did not measure QoL." } ]
query-laysum	7307	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMajor abdominal surgery can be associated with a number of serious complications that may impair patient recovery. In particular, postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), including respiratory complications such as atelectasis and pneumonia, are a major contributor to postoperative morbidity and may even contribute to increased mortality. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a type of therapy that uses a high-pressure gas source to deliver constant positive pressure to the airways throughout both inspiration and expiration. This approach is expected to prevent some pulmonary complications, thus reducing mortality.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether any difference can be found in the rate of mortality and adverse events following major abdominal surgery in patients treated postoperatively with CPAP versus standard care, which may include traditional oxygen delivery systems, physiotherapy and incentive spirometry.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2013, Issue 9; Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 15 September 2013); EMBASE (1988 to 15 September 2013); Web of Science (to September 2013) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (to September 2013).\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which CPAP was compared with standard care for prevention of postoperative mortality and adverse events following major abdominal surgery. We included all adults (adults as defined by individual studies) of both sexes. The intervention of CPAP was applied during the postoperative period. We excluded studies in which participants had received PEEP during surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies that met the selection criteria from all studies identified by the search strategy. Two review authors extracted the data and assessed risk of bias separately, using a data extraction form. Data entry into RevMan was performed by one review author and was checked by another for accuracy. We performed a limited meta-analysis and constructed a summary of findings table.\nMain results\nWe selected 10 studies for inclusion in the review from 5236 studies identified in the search. These 10 studies included a total of 709 participants. Risk of bias for the included studies was assessed as high in six studies and as unclear in four studies.\nTwo RCTs reported all-cause mortality. Among 413 participants, there was no clear evidence of a difference in mortality between CPAP and control groups, and considerable heterogeneity between trials was noted (risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 4.66; I2 = 75%).\nSix studies reported demonstrable atelectasis in the study population. A reduction in atelectasis was observed in the CPAP group, although heterogeneity between studies was substantial (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86; I2 = 61%). Pneumonia was reported in five studies, including 563 participants; CPAP reduced the rate of pneumonia, and no important heterogeneity was noted (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.84; I2 = 0%). The number of participants identified as having serious hypoxia was reported in two studies, with no clear difference between CPAP and control groups, given imprecise results and substantial heterogeneity between trials (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.02; I2 = 67%). A reduced rate of reintubation was reported in the CPAP group compared with the control group in two studies, and no important heterogeneity was identified (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.58; I2 = 0%). Admission into the intensive care unit (ICU) for invasive ventilation and supportive care was reduced in the CPAP group, but this finding did not reach statistical significance (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.14; I2 = 0).\nSecondary outcomes such as length of hospital stay and adverse effects were only minimally reported.\nA summary of findings table was constructed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) principle. The quality of evidence was determined to be very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVery low-quality evidence from this review suggests that CPAP initiated during the postoperative period might reduce postoperative atelectasis, pneumonia and reintubation, but its effects on mortality, hypoxia or invasive ventilation are uncertain. Evidence is not sufficiently strong to confirm the benefits or harms of CPAP during the postoperative period in those undergoing major abdominal surgery. Most of the included studies did not report on adverse effects attributed to CPAP.\nNew, high-quality research is much needed to evaluate the use of CPAP in preventing mortality and morbidity following major abdominal surgery. With increasing availability of CPAP to our surgical patients and its potential to improve outcomes (possibly in conjunction with intraoperative lung protective ventilation strategies), unanswered questions regarding its efficacy and safety need to be addressed. Any future study must report on the adverse effects of CPAP.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Does continuous positive airway pressure during the postoperative period help reduce death and major lung complications after major abdominal surgery?" } ]
query-laysum	7308	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDespite advances in perioperative care, elective major vascular surgical procedures still carry a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is the temporary blocking of blood flow to vascular beds remote from those targeted by surgery. It has the potential to provide local tissue protection from further prolonged periods of ischaemia. However, the efficacy and safety of RIPC in people undergoing major vascular surgery remain unknown. This is an update of a review published in 2011.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of RIPC versus no RIPC in people undergoing elective major vascular and endovascular surgery.\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 to 1 April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials that evaluated the role of RIPC in reducing perioperative mortality and morbidities in people undergoing elective major vascular or endovascular surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nWe collected data on the characteristics of the trial, methodological quality, and the remote ischaemic preconditioning stimulus used. Our primary outcome was perioperative mortality, and secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, renal impairment, stroke, hospital stay, limb loss, and operating time or total anaesthetic time. We analysed the data using random-effects models. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) based on an intention-to-treat analysis. In addition, we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 14 trials which randomised a total of 1295 participants (age range: 64.5 to 76 years; 84% male; study periods ranged from 2003 to 2019). In general, the included studies were at low to unclear risk of bias for most risk of bias domains. The certainty of evidence of main outcomes was moderate due to imprecision of results, moderate heterogeneity, or possible publication bias.\nWe found that RIPC made no clear difference in perioperative mortality compared with no RIPC (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.40; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 965 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Similarly, we found no clear difference between the two groups for myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.40; I2 = 7%; 11 studies, 1001 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), renal impairment (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.86; I2 = 40%; 12 studies, 1054 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), stroke (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 392 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), limb loss (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.05 to 10.61; I2 = 32%; 3 studies, 322 participants; low-certainty evidence), hospital stay (MD −0.94 day, 95% CI −1.95 to 0.07; I2 = 17%; 7 studies, 569 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and operating time or total anaesthetic time (MD 5.76 minutes, 95% CI −3.25 to 14.76; I2 = 44%; 10 studies, 803 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, compared with no RIPC, RIPC probably leads to little or no difference in perioperative mortality, myocardial infarction, renal impairment, stroke, hospital stay, and operating time, and may lead to little or no difference in limb loss in people undergoing elective major vascular and endovascular surgery. Adequately powered and designed randomised studies are needed, focusing in particular on the clinical endpoints and patient-centred outcomes.\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 that performing short periods of limb blood flow obstruction by inflating a blood pressure cuff before surgery (remote ischaemic preconditioning, RIPC) probably does not reduce deaths, organ injury, duration of hospital stay, or operating time in people undergoing vascular surgery (e.g. a treatment method to repair narrowing or swelling of an artery).\n• Larger, well-designed studies with patient-centred outcomes, such as quality of life, are needed to better estimate the benefits and potential harms of RIPC for people undergoing vascular surgery." } ]
query-laysum	7309	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAlthough superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity represents a frequent complication of intravenous catheters inserted into the peripheral veins of the forearm or hand, no consensus exists on the optimal management of this condition in clinical practice.\nObjectives\nTo summarise the evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and safety of (topical, oral or parenteral) medical therapy of superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials registries were searched up to April 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs comparing any (topical, oral or parenteral) medical treatment to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different medical interventions (e.g. a different variant scheme or regimen of the same intervention or a different pharmacological type of treatment).\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data on methodological quality, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes, including improvement of signs and symptoms as the primary effectiveness outcome, and number of participants experiencing side effects of the study treatments as the primary safety outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified 13 studies (917 participants). The evaluated treatment modalities consisted of a topical treatment (11 studies), an oral treatment (2 studies) and a parenteral treatment (2 studies). Seven studies used a placebo or no intervention control group, whereas all others also or solely compared active treatment groups. No study evaluated the effects of ice or the application of cold or hot bandages. Overall, the risk of bias in individual trials was moderate to high, although poor reporting hampered a full appreciation of the risk in most studies. The overall quality of the evidence for each of the outcomes varied from low to moderate mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision, with only single trials contributing to most comparisons. Data on primary outcomes improvement of signs and symptoms and side effects attributed to the study treatment could not be statistically pooled because of the between-study differences in comparisons, outcomes and type of instruments to measure outcomes.\nAn array of topical treatments, such as heparinoid or diclofenac gels, improved pain compared to placebo or no intervention. Compared to placebo, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced signs and symptoms intensity. Safety issues were reported sparsely and were not available for some interventions, such as notoginseny creams, parenteral low-molecular-weight heparin or defibrotide. Although several trials reported on adverse events with topical heparinoid creams, Essaven gel or phlebolan versus control, the trials were underpowered to adequately measure any differences between treatment modalities. Where reported, adverse events with topical treatments consisted mainly of local allergic reactions. Only one study of 15 participants assessed thrombus extension and symptomatic venous thromboembolism with either oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or low-molecular-weight heparin, and it reported no cases of either. No study reported on the development of suppurative phlebitis, catheter-related bloodstream infections or quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence about the treatment of acute infusion superficial thrombophlebitis is limited and of low quality. Data appear too preliminary to assess the effectiveness and safety of topical treatments, systemic anticoagulation or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.\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": "Superficial thrombophlebitis is an inflammatory condition of the veins just below the surface of the skin. The development of superficial thrombophlebitis frequently complicates the insertion of needles into the veins for catheters to give medication or fluids in hospitalised patients. The best treatment for these blood clots in the hands and arms remains unclear. While local treatment has the potential to improve the painful symptoms and patient discomfort, it may not prevent complications, including infection or the extension or transit of the clot into the deep vein system." } ]
query-laysum	7310	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOsteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Alendronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs, which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of alendronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE for relevant randomized controlled trials published between 1966 to 2007.\nSelection criteria\nWomen receiving at least one year of alendronate, for postmenopausal osteoporosis, were compared to those receiving placebo and/or concurrent calcium/vitamin D. The outcome was fracture incidence.\nData collection and analysis\nWe undertook study selection and data abstraction in duplicate. We performed meta-analysis of fracture outcomes using relative risks and a > 15% relative change was considered clinically important. We assessed study quality through reporting of allocation concealment, blinding and withdrawals.\nMain results\nEleven trials representing 12,068 women were included in the review.\nRelative (RRR) and absolute (ARR) risk reductions for the 10 mg dose were as follows. For vertebral fractures, a significant 45% RRR was found (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.67). This was significant for both primary prevention, with 45% RRR (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80) and 2% ARR, and secondary prevention with 45% RRR (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.69) and 6% ARR. For non-vertebral fractures, a significant 16% RRR was found (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94). This was significant for secondary prevention, with 23% RRR (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.92) and 2% ARR, but not for primary prevention (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.04). There was a significant 40% RRR in hip fractures (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92), but only secondary prevention was significant with 53% RRR (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.85) and 1% ARR. The only significance found for wrist was in secondary prevention, with a 50% RRR (RR 0.50 95% CI 0.34 to 0.73) and 2% ARR.\nFor adverse events, we found no statistically significant differences in any included study. However, observational data raise concerns regarding potential risk for upper gastrointestinal injury and, less commonly, osteonecrosis of the jaw.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt 10 mg per day, both clinically important and statistically significant reductions in vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures were observed for secondary prevention ('gold' level evidence, www.cochranemsk.org). We found no statistically significant results for primary prevention, with the exception of vertebral fractures, for which the reduction was clinically important ('gold' level evidence).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"In women whose bone density is closer to normal, or who may not yet have had a fracture in the bones of their spine, alendronate\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "- probably prevents fractures in the spine\n- probably leads to no difference in fractures of the hip, wrist or bones other than the spine." } ]
query-laysum	7311	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThere is general agreement that oxytocin given either through the intravenous or intramuscular route is effective in reducing postpartum blood loss. However, it is unclear whether the subtle differences between the mode of action of these routes have any effect on maternal and infant outcomes. This review was first published in 2012 and last updated in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of oxytocin administered intravenously or intramuscularly for prophylactic management of the third stage of labour after vaginal birth.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (19 December 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nEligible studies were randomised trials comparing intravenous with intramuscular oxytocin for prophylactic management of the third stage of labour after vaginal birth. We excluded quasi-randomised trials.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nSeven trials, involving 7817 women, met the inclusion criteria for this review. The trials compared intravenous versus intramuscular administration of oxytocin just after the birth of the anterior shoulder or soon after the birth of the baby. All trials were conducted in hospital settings, mainly in middle- and high-income countries, and included women with term pregnancies, undergoing a vaginal birth. Overall, the included studies were at moderate or low risk of bias, with two trials providing clear information on allocation concealment and blinding.\nHigh-certainty evidence suggests that intravenous administration of oxytocin in the third stage of labour compared with intramuscular administration carries a lower risk for postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) ≥ 500 mL (average risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92; six trials; 7731 women) and blood transfusion (average RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.77; four trials; 6684 women). Intravenous administration of oxytocin probably reduces the risk of PPH ≥ 1000 mL, although the 95% CI crosses the line of no-effect (average RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.08; four trials; 6681 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In all studies but one, there was a reduction in the risk of PPH ≥ 1000 mL with intravenous oxytocin. The study that found a large increase with intravenous administration was small (256 women), and contributed only 3% of total events. Once this small study was removed from the meta-analysis, heterogeneity was eliminated and the treatment effect favoured intravenous oxytocin (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.88; three trials; 6425 women; high-certainty evidence). Additionally, a sensitivity analysis, exploring the effect of risk of bias by restricting analysis to those studies rated as 'low risk of bias' for random sequence generation and allocation concealment, found that the prophylactic administration of intravenous oxytocin reduces the risk for PPH ≥ 1000 mL, compared with intramuscular oxytocin (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.94; two trials; 1512 women). There may be little to no difference between the two routes of oxytocin administration in terms of additional uterotonic use (average RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.25; six trials; 7327 women; low-certainty evidence). Although intravenous compared with intramuscular administration of oxytocin probably results in a lower risk for serious maternal morbidity (e.g. hysterectomy, organ failure, coma, intensive care unit admissions), the size of the effect is uncertain as the confidence interval is wide, including a substantial reduction, but also touches the line of no-effect (average RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.00; four trials; 7028 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Most events occurred in one study from Ireland reporting high dependency unit admissions, whereas in the remaining three studies there was only one case of uvular oedema. There were no maternal deaths reported in any of the included studies (very low-certainty evidence).\nThere is probably little or no difference in the risk of hypotension between intravenous and intramuscular administration of oxytocin (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.15; four trials; 6468 women; moderate-certainty evidence).\nSubgroup analyses based on the mode of administration of intravenous oxytocin (bolus injection or infusion) versus intramuscular oxytocin did not show any evidence of substantial differences on the primary outcomes. Similarly, additional subgroup analyses based on whether oxytocin was used alone or as part of active management of the third stage of labour (AMTSL) did not show any evidence of substantial differences between the two routes of administration.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIntravenous administration of oxytocin is more effective than its intramuscular administration in preventing PPH during vaginal birth. Intravenous oxytocin administration presents no evidence of additional safety concerns and has a comparable side effects profile with its intramuscular administration. Future studies should consider the acceptability, feasibility and resource use for the intervention, especially in low-resource settings.\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": "Most maternal deaths occur within the first 24 hours after delivery. Up to one-fourth of them are caused by excessive bleeding (called postpartum haemorrhage). In low-income countries, drugs to prevent or treat postpartum haemorrhage (uterotonics) are not always available. Oxytocin is one such drug. Oxytocin prevents excessive postpartum bleeding by helping the uterus to contract. It is given to the mother by injection into a vein or into muscle during or immediately after the birth of her baby." } ]
query-laysum	7312	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPlantar heel pain, commonly resulting from plantar fasciitis, often results in significant morbidity. Treatment options include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), orthoses, physical therapy, physical agents (e.g. extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT), laser) and invasive procedures including steroid injections.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of injected corticosteroids for treating plantar heel pain in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, clinical trials registries and conference proceedings. Latest search: 27 March 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised trials of corticosteroid injections in the treatment of plantar heel pain in adults were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcome measures. We used a fixed-effect model unless heterogeneity was significant, when a random-effects model was considered. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for individual outcomes using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 39 studies (36 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 3 quasi-RCTs) that involved a total of 2492 adults. Most studies were small (median = 59 participants). Participants' mean ages ranged from 34 years to 59 years. When reported, most participants had heel pain for several months. The trials were usually conducted in outpatient specialty clinics of tertiary care hospitals in 17 countries. Steroid injection was given with a local anaesthetic agent in 34 trials. Follow-up was from one month to over two years. With one exception, trials were assessed at high risk of bias in one or more domains, mostly relating to lack of blinding, including lack of confirmation of allocation concealment. With two exceptions, we rated the available evidence as very low quality, implying in each case that we are 'very uncertain about the estimate'.\nThe 39 trials covered 18 comparisons, with six of the seven trials with three or four groups providing evidence towards two comparisons.\nEight trials (724 participants) compared steroid injection versus placebo or no treatment. Steroid injection may lead to lower heel pain visual analogue scores (VAS) (0 to 100; higher scores = worse pain) in the short-term (< 1 month) (MD -6.38, 95% CI -11.13 to -1.64; 350 participants; 5 studies; I² = 65%; low quality evidence). Based on a minimal clinically significant difference (MCID) of 8 for average heel pain, the 95% CI includes a marginal clinical benefit. This potential benefit was diminished when data were restricted to three placebo-controlled trials. Steroid injection made no difference to average heel pain in the medium-term (1 to 6 months follow-up) (MD -3.47, 95% CI -8.43 to 1.48; 382 participants; 6 studies; I² = 40%; low quality evidence). There was very low quality evidence for no effect on function in the medium-term and for an absence of serious adverse events (219 participants, 4 studies). No studies reported on other adverse events, such as post-injection pain, and on return to previous activity. There was very low quality evidence for fewer treatment failures (defined variously as persistent heel pain at 8 weeks, steroid injection at 12 weeks, and unrelieved pain at 6 months) after steroid injection.\nThe available evidence for other comparisons was rated as very low quality. We are therefore very uncertain of the estimates for the relative effects on people with heel pain of steroids compared with other interventions in:\n1. Tibial nerve block with anaesthetic (2 trials); orthoses (4 trials); oral NSAIDs (2 trials); and intensive physiotherapy (1 trial).\n2. Physical modalities: ESWT (5 trials); laser (2 trials); and radiation therapy (1 trial).\n3. Other invasive procedures: locally injectable NSAID (1 trial); platelet-rich plasma injections (5 trials); autologous blood injections (2 trials); botulinum toxin injections (2 trials); cryopreserved human amniotic membrane injection (1 trial); localised peppering with a needle (1 trial); dry needling (1 trial); and mini scalpel needle release (1 trial).\nWe are also uncertain about the estimates from trials testing different techniques of local steroid injection: ultrasonography-guided versus palpation-guided (5 trials); and scintigraphy-guided versus palpation-guided (1 trial).\nAn exploratory analysis involving pooling data from 21 trials reporting on adverse events revealed two ruptures of plantar fascia (reported in 1 trial) and three injection site infections (reported in 2 trials) in 699 participants allocated to steroid injection study arms. Five trials reported a total of 27 participants with less serious short-term adverse events in the 699 participants allocated steroid injection study arms. Reported treatments were analgesia, ice or both. Given the high risk of selective reporting for these outcomes and imprecision, this evidence was rated at very low quality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low quality evidence that local steroid injections compared with placebo or no treatment may slightly reduce heel pain up to one month but not subsequently. The available evidence for other outcomes of this comparison was very low quality. Where available, the evidence from comparisons of steroid injections with other interventions used to treat heel pain and of different methods of guiding the injection was also very low quality. Although serious adverse events relating to steroid injection were rare, these were under-reported and a higher risk cannot be ruled out.\nFurther research should focus on establishing the effects (benefits and harms) of injected steroids compared with placebo in typical clinical settings, subsequent to a course of unsuccessful conservative therapy. Ideally, this should be preceded by research, including patient involvement, aimed to obtain consensus on the priority questions for treating plantar heel pain.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We included 39 studies that involved a total of 2492 adults. The average ages of the participants in the studies ranged from 34 years to 59 years. When reported, most participants had heel pain for several months. Studies were usually conducted in outpatient specialty clinics of hospitals in 17 countries. Steroid injections were usually given with a local anaesthetic agent. Study follow-up was from one month to over two years.\nThe studies compared steroid injection with placebo or no treatment (8 studies); tibial nerve block with anaesthetic (2 studies); heel pads (4 studies); oral anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (2 studies); an intensive exercise programme (1 study); shock wave therapy (5 studies); laser (2 studies); radiation therapy (1 study); local NSAID injection (1 study); platelet-rich plasma injections (5 studies); injection of the person's own (autologous) blood (2 studies); botulinum toxin (Botox) injections (2 studies); frozen (cryopreserved) human amniotic membrane injection (1 study); localised peppering involving multiple pricking of the tissues using an inserted needle (1 study); dry needling (1 study); and mini scalpel-needle release (1 study). We also compared different techniques of local steroid injection (5 studies)." } ]
query-laysum	7313	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe ideal quantity of dietary protein for formula-fed low birth weight infants is still a matter of debate. Protein intake must be sufficient to achieve normal growth without leading to negative effects such as acidosis, uremia, and elevated levels of circulating amino acids.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether higher (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d) versus lower (< 3.0 g/kg/d) protein intake during the initial hospital stay of formula-fed preterm infants or low birth weight infants (< 2.5 kilograms) results in improved growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes without evidence of short- or long-term morbidity.\nSpecific objectives were to examine the following comparisons of interventions and to conduct subgroup analyses if possible.\n1. Low protein intake if the amount was less than 3.0 g/kg/d.\n2. High protein intake if the amount was equal to or greater than 3.0 g/kg/d but less than 4.0 g/kg/d.\n3. Very high protein intake if the amount was equal to or greater than 4.0 g/kg/d.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 8), in the Cochrane Library (August 2, 2019); OVID MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily, and Ovid MEDLINE(R) (to August 2, 2019); MEDLINE via PubMed (to August 2, 2019) for the previous year; and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (to August 2, 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs contrasting levels of formula protein intake as low (< 3.0 g/kg/d), high (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d but < 4.0 g/kg/d), or very high (≥ 4.0 g/kg/d) in formula-fed hospitalized neonates weighing less than 2.5 kilograms. We excluded studies if infants received partial parenteral nutrition during the study period, or if infants were fed formula as a supplement to human milk.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified six eligible trials that enrolled 218 infants through searches updated to August 2, 2019. Five studies compared low (< 3 g/kg/d) versus high (3.0 to 4.0 g/kg/d) protein intake using formulas that kept other nutrients constant. The trials were small (n = 139), and almost all had methodological limitations; the most frequent uncertainty was about attrition. Low-certainty evidence suggests improved weight gain (mean difference [MD] 2.36 g/kg/d, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31 to 3.40) and higher nitrogen accretion in infants receiving formula with higher protein content (3.0 to 4.0 g/kg/d) versus lower protein content (< 3 g/kg/d), while other nutrients were kept constant. No significant differences were seen in rates of necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, or diarrhea. We are uncertain whether high versus low protein intake affects head growth (MD 0.37 cm/week, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.58; n = 18) and length gain (MD 0.16 cm/week, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.34; n = 48), but sample sizes were small for these comparisons.\nOne study compared high (3.0 to 4.0 g/kg/d) versus very high (≥ 4 g/kg/d) protein intake (average intakes were 3.6 and 4.1 g/kg/d) during and after an initial hospital stay (n = 77). Moderate-certainty evidence shows no significant differences in weight gain or length gain to discharge, term, and 12 weeks corrected age from very high protein intake (4.1 versus 3.6 g/kg/d). Three of the 24 infants receiving very high protein intake developed uremia.\nAuthors' conclusions\nHigher protein intake (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d but < 4.0 g/kg/d) from formula accelerates weight gain. However, limited information is available regarding the impact of higher formula protein intake on long-term outcomes such as neurodevelopment. Research is needed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of protein intake ≥ 4.0 g/kg/d.\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 feeding preterm or low birth weight infants (< 2.5 kilograms) higher protein intake during the initial hospital stay improve growth and developmental outcomes?" } ]
query-laysum	7314	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDietary changes are routinely recommended in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on the basis of randomised evidence in the general population and non-randomised studies in CKD that suggest certain healthy eating patterns may prevent cardiovascular events and lower mortality. People who have kidney disease have prioritised dietary modifications as an important treatment uncertainty.\nObjectives\nThis review evaluated the benefits and harms of dietary interventions among adults with CKD including people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) treated with dialysis or kidney transplantation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register (up to 31 January 2017) through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised RCTs of dietary interventions versus other dietary interventions, lifestyle advice, or standard care assessing mortality, cardiovascular events, health-related quality of life, and biochemical, anthropomorphic, and nutritional outcomes among people with CKD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. Results were summarised as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or mean differences (MD) or standardised MD (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) or in descriptive format when meta-analysis was not possible. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 17 studies involving 1639 people with CKD. Three studies enrolled 341 people treated with dialysis, four studies enrolled 168 kidney transplant recipients, and 10 studies enrolled 1130 people with CKD stages 1 to 5. Eleven studies (900 people) evaluated dietary counselling with or without lifestyle advice and six evaluated dietary patterns (739 people), including one study (191 people) of a carbohydrate-restricted low-iron, polyphenol enriched diet, two studies (181 people) of increased fruit and vegetable intake, two studies (355 people) of a Mediterranean diet and one study (12 people) of a high protein/low carbohydrate diet. Risks of bias in the included studies were generally high or unclear, lowering confidence in the results. Participants were followed up for a median of 12 months (range 1 to 46.8 months).\nStudies were not designed to examine all-cause mortality or cardiovascular events. In very-low quality evidence, dietary interventions had uncertain effects on all-cause mortality or ESKD. In absolute terms, dietary interventions may prevent one person in every 3000 treated for one year avoiding ESKD, although the certainty in this effect was very low. Across all 17 studies, outcome data for cardiovascular events were sparse. Dietary interventions in low quality evidence were associated with a higher health-related quality of life (2 studies, 119 people: MD in SF-36 score 11.46, 95% CI 7.73 to 15.18; I2 = 0%). Adverse events were generally not reported.\nDietary interventions lowered systolic blood pressure (3 studies, 167 people: MD -9.26 mm Hg, 95% CI -13.48 to -5.04; I2 = 80%) and diastolic blood pressure (2 studies, 95 people: MD -8.95, 95% CI -10.69 to -7.21; I2 = 0%) compared to a control diet. Dietary interventions were associated with a higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (5 studies, 219 people: SMD 1.08; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.97; I2 = 88%) and serum albumin levels (6 studies, 541 people: MD 0.16 g/dL, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.24; I2 = 26%). A Mediterranean diet lowered serum LDL cholesterol levels (1 study, 40 people: MD -1.00 mmol/L, 95% CI -1.56 to -0.44).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDietary interventions have uncertain effects on mortality, cardiovascular events and ESKD among people with CKD as these outcomes were rarely measured or reported. Dietary interventions may increase health-related quality of life, eGFR, and serum albumin, and lower blood pressure and serum cholesterol levels.\nBased on stakeholder prioritisation of dietary research in the setting of CKD and preliminary evidence of beneficial effects on risks factors for clinical outcomes, large-scale pragmatic RCTs to test the effects of dietary interventions on patient outcomes are required.\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": "People who have kidney disease can experience a lower life expectancy, complications including heart disease, and may need treatment for severe kidney failure, such as dialysis. Patients and doctors wish to identify treatments that protect people against kidney failure or heart disease. For both doctors and people who have kidney disease, lifestyle changes such as diet are very important as possible ways to improve health and well-being, and provide people with a chance to 'self-manage' their care for kidney disease." } ]
query-laysum	7315	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStrategies to reduce the risk of mother-to-child transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) include lifelong antiretroviral therapy (ART) for HIV-positive women, exclusive breastfeeding from birth for six weeks plus nevirapine or replacement feeding plus nevirapine from birth for four to six weeks, elective Caesarean section delivery, and avoiding giving children chewed food. In some settings, these interventions may not be practical, feasible, or affordable. Simple, inexpensive, and effective interventions (that could potentially be implemented even in the absence of prenatal HIV testing programmes) would be valuable. Vitamin A, which plays a role in immune function, is one low-cost intervention that has been suggested in such settings.\nObjectives\nTo summarize the effects of giving vitamin A supplements to HIV-positive women during pregnancy and after delivery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to 25 August 2017, and checked the reference lists of relevant articles for eligible studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials conducted in any setting that compared vitamin A supplements to placebo or no intervention among HIV-positive women during pregnancy or after delivery, or both.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) as appropriate, with their 95% confidence intervals (CI), and conducted random-effects meta-analyses. This is an update of a review last published in 2011.\nMain results\nFive trials met the inclusion criteria. These were conducted in Malawi, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe between 1995 and 2005 and none of the participants received ART. Women allocated to intervention arms received vitamin A supplements at a variety of doses (daily during pregnancy; a single dose immediately after delivery, or daily doses during pregnancy plus a single dose after delivery). Women allocated to comparison arms received identical placebo (6601 women, 4 trials) or no intervention (697 women, 1 trial). Four trials (with 6995 women) had low risk of bias and one trial (with 303 women) had high risk of attrition bias.\nThe trials show that giving vitamin A supplements to HIV-positive women during pregnancy, the immediate postpartum period, or both, probably has little or no effect on mother-to-child transmission of HIV (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.26; 4428 women, 5 trials, moderate certainty evidence) and may have little or no effect on child death by two years of age (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.22; 3883 women, 3 trials, low certainty evidence). However, giving vitamin A supplements during pregnancy may increase the mean birthweight (MD 34.12 g, 95% CI −12.79 to 81.02; 2181 women, 3 trials, low certainty evidence) and probably reduces the incidence of low birthweight (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.97; 1819 women, 3 trials, moderate certainty evidence); but we do not know whether vitamin A supplements affect the risk of preterm delivery (1577 women, 2 trials), stillbirth (2335 women, 3 trials), or maternal death (1267 women, 2 trials).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAntepartum or postpartum vitamin A supplementation, or both, probably has little or no effect on mother-to-child transmission of HIV in women living with HIV infection and not on antiretroviral drugs. The intervention has largely been superseded by ART which is widely available and effective in preventing vertical transmission.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the key message of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Giving vitamin A supplements to HIV-positive women, during pregnancy or after delivery, or both, probably makes little or no difference to the risk of mother-to-child transmission of HIV (moderate certainty evidence)." } ]
query-laysum	7316	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nApproximately 3.7 million people died from acute coronary syndrome worldwide in 2012. Acute coronary syndrome, also known as myocardial infarction or unstable angina pectoris, is caused by a sudden blockage of the blood supplied to the heart muscle. Percutaneous coronary intervention is often used for acute coronary syndrome, but previous systematic reviews on the effects of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents have shown conflicting results with regard to myocardial infarction; have not fully taken account of the risk of random and systematic errors; and have not included all relevant randomised clinical trials.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in people with acute coronary syndrome.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, SCI-EXPANDED, and BIOSIS from their inception to January 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registers, the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration databases, and pharmaceutical company websites. In addition, we searched the reference lists of review articles and relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials assessing the effects of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents for acute coronary syndrome. We included trials irrespective of publication type, status, date, or language.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed our published protocol and the methodological recommendations of Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed the risks of systematic error by bias domains. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risks of random errors. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. Our primary assessment time point was at maximum follow-up. We assessed the quality of the evidence by the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 25 trials randomising a total of 12,503 participants. All trials were at high risk of bias, and the quality of evidence according to GRADE was low to very low. We included 22 trials where the participants presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, 1 trial where participants presented with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and 2 trials where participants presented with a mix of acute coronary syndromes.\nMeta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. The absolute risk of death was 6.97% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 7.74% in the bare-metal stents group based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.03, 11,250 participants, 21 trials/22 comparisons, low-quality evidence). The absolute risk of a major cardiovascular event was 6.36% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 6.63% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11, 10,939 participants, 19 trials/20 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we did not have sufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on either all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events at maximum follow-up.\nMeta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed evidence of a benefit when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of a serious adverse event. The absolute risk of a serious adverse event was 18.04% in the drug-eluting stents group compared with 23.01% in the bare-metal stents group based on the RR of 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.86, 11,724 participants, 22 trials/23 comparisons, low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result. When assessing each specific type of adverse event included in the serious adverse event outcome separately, the majority of the events were target vessel revascularisation. When target vessel revascularisation was analysed separately, meta-analysis showed evidence of a benefit of drug-eluting stents, and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this result.\nMeta-analyses at maximum follow-up showed no evidence of a difference when comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents on the risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09, 9248 participants, 14 trials/15 comparisons, very low-quality evidence) or myocardial infarction (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18, 10,217 participants, 18 trials/19 comparisons, very low-quality evidence). The results of the Trial Sequential Analysis showed that we had insufficient information to confirm or reject our anticipated risk ratio reduction of 10% on cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction.\nNo trials reported results on quality of life or angina.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence suggests that drug-eluting stents may lead to fewer serious adverse events compared with bare-metal stents without increasing the risk of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events. However, our Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there currently was not enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of 10% for all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, or myocardial infarction, and there were no data on quality of life or angina. The evidence in this review was of low to very low quality, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented in this review.\nMore randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and low risks of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents for acute coronary syndrome are to be assessed properly. More data are needed on the outcomes all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, quality of life, and angina to reduce the risk of random error.\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": "Acute coronary syndrome is a term applied to heart attacks as well as chest pain during rest. The syndrome is caused by decreased blood supply to the heart due to either a narrowing of the vessels supplying the heart or a blood clot. According to the World Health Organization, 3.7 million people died from acute coronary syndrome in 2012. Percutaneous coronary intervention, commonly known as coronary angioplasty, is used to treat the narrowed or blocked vessel of the heart by inflating a balloon to allow blood to flow through the vessel again. Coronary stents are then inserted into the vessel to ensure it remains open. Two types of stents are available for use, a stent that is coated with a drug intended to reduce the risk of future blockages (drug-eluting stent) and an uncoated stent (bare-metal stent). In this review, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents." } ]
query-laysum	7317	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIn most Western countries, obstetricians and midwives induce labour in about 25% of pregnant women. Oxytocin is an effective drug for this purpose, but associated with serious adverse effects of which uterine tachysystole, fetal distress and the need for immediate delivery are the most common. Various administration regimens such as reduced or pulsatile dosing have been suggested to minimise these. Discontinuation in the active phase of labour, i.e. when contractions are well-established and the cervix is dilated at least 5 cm is another method which may reduce adverse effects.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether birth outcomes can be improved by discontinuation of intravenous (IV) oxytocin, initiated in the latent phase of induced labour, once active phase of labour is established.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 January 2018), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (23 January 2018) together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing discontinued IV with continuous IV oxytocin in the active phase of induced labour.\nNo exclusion criteria were applied in terms of parity, maternal age, ethnicity, co-morbidity status, labour setting, gestational age, and prior caesarean delivery.\nStudies comparing different dosage regimens are outside the scope of this review.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods.\nMain results\nWe found 10 completed RCTs involving 1888 women. One additional trial is ongoing. The included trials were conducted in hospital settings between February 1998 and January 2016, two in Europe (Denmark, and Greece), two in Turkey, and one each in Israel, Iran, USA, Bangladesh, India, and Thailand. Most trials included full-term singleton pregnancies with a fetus in vertex presentation. Some excluded women with cervical priming prior to induction and some excluded women with a history of prior caesarean delivery. When reported, the average age of the women ranged from 22 to 31 years, nulliparity from 45% to 68%, and pre-pregnancy body mass index from 22 to 32.\nMany of the included trials had design limitations and were judged to be at either high or unclear risk of bias across a number of 'Risk of bias' domains.\nFour trials included a Consort flow diagram. In three, this gave details of participants delivered before the active phase of labour, and treatment compliance for those who reached that stage. One Consort diagram only provided the latter information. The data in many of the trials without such a flow diagram were implausibly compliant with treatment allocation, suggesting that there had been silent post randomisation exclusions of women delivered before the active phase of labour. We therefore conducted a secondary analysis (not in our protocol) of caesarean section among women who reached the active phase of labour and were therefore eligible for the intervention.\nOur analysis by 'intention-to-treat' found that, compared with continuation of IV oxytocin stimulation, discontinuation of IV oxytocin may reduce the caesarean delivery rate, risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.86, 9 trials, 1784 women, low-level certainty. However, restricting our analysis to women who reached the active phase of labour (using 'reached active phase' as our denominator) suggests there is probably little or no difference between groups (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.29, 4 trials, 787 women, moderate-certainty evidence).\nDiscontinuation of IV oxytocin probably reduces the risk ofuterine tachysystole combined with abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) compared with continued IV oxytocin (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.46, 3 trials, 486 women, moderate-level certainty). We are uncertain about whether or not discontinuation increases the risk of chorioamnionitis (average RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.45, 1 trial, 252 women, very low-level certainty). Discontinuation of IV oxytocin may have little or no impact on the use of analgesia and epidural during labour compared to the use of continued IV oxytocin (RR 1.04 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14, 3 trials, 556 women, low-level certainty). Intrapartum cardiotocography (CTG) abnormalities (suspicious/pathological CTGs) are probably reduced by discontinuing IV oxytocin (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.83, 7 trials, 1390 women, moderate-level certainty). Compared to continuing IV oxytocin, discontinuing IV oxytocin probably has little or no impact on the incidence of Apgar < 7 at five minutes (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.21, 4 trials, 893 women, low-level certainty), or and acidotic cord gasses at birth (arterial umbilical pH < 7.10), (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.13, 4 trials, 873 women, low-level certainty).\nMany of this review's maternal and infant secondary outcomes (including maternal and neonatal mortality) were not reported in the included trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDiscontinuing IV oxytocin stimulation after the active phase of labour has been established may reduce caesarean delivery but the evidence for this was low certainty. When restricting our analysis to those trials that separately reported participants who reached the active phase of labour, our results showed there is probably little or no difference between groups. Discontinuing IV oxytocin may reduce uterine tachysystole combined with abnormal FHR.\nMost of the trials had 'Risk of bias' concerns which means that these results should be interpreted with caution. Our GRADE assessments ranged from very low certainty to moderate certainty. Downgrading decisions were based on study limitations, imprecision and indirectness.\nFuture research could account for all women randomised and, in particular, note those who delivered before the point at which they would be eligible for the intervention (i.e. those who had caesareans in the latent phase), or because labour was so rapid that the infusion could not be stopped in time.\nFuture trials could adopt the outcomes listed in this review including maternal and neonatal mortality, maternal satisfaction, and breastfeeding.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does this mean?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Stopping oxytocin after the active phase of labour has started may reduce the number of women with contractions that become too long or too strong resulting in changes to the baby’s heart rate, and the risk of having a caesarean. However, the possible reduction in the risk of caesarean may be an artefact of poor study design.\nBetter quality trials are needed. These could include in the analysis those women who did not reach the active phase of labour because their babies were delivered earlier by caesarean, and those whose labour was so rapid that the oxytocin could not be stopped in time, i.e. analysis should be by 'intention-to-treat\".\nFuture studies could include the outcomes listed in this review, including women's satisfaction." } ]
query-laysum	7318	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nApnoea is a breathing disorder marked by the absence of airflow at the nose or mouth. In children, risk factors include adenotonsillar hypertrophy, obesity, neuromuscular disorders and craniofacial anomalies. The most common treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) in childhood is adeno-tonsillectomy. This approach is limited by its surgical risks, mostly in children with comorbidities and, in some patients, by recurrence that can be associated with craniofacial problems. Oral appliances and functional orthopaedic appliances have been used for patients who have OSAS and craniofacial anomalies because they hold the lower jaw (mandible) forwards which potentially enlarges the upper airway and increases the upper airspace, improving the respiratory function.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of oral appliances or functional orthopaedic appliances for obstructive sleep apnoea in children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 7 April 2016); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 7 April 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 7 April 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 7 April 2016); LILACS BIREME (from 1982 to 7 April 2016); BBO BIREME (from 1986 to 7 April 2016) and SciELO Web of Science (from 1997 to 7 April 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials on 7 April 2016. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing all types of oral and functional orthopaedic appliances with placebo or no treatment, in children 15 years old or younger. Primary outcome: reduction of apnoea to less than one episode per hour. Secondary outcomes: dental and skeletal relationship, sleep parameters improvement, cognitive and phonoaudiological function, behavioural problems, quality of life, side effects (tolerability) and economic evaluation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened studies and extracted data independently. Authors were contacted for additional information. We calculated risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals for all important dichotomous outcomes. We assessed the quality of the evidence of included studies using GRADEpro software.\nMain results\nThe initial search identified 686 trials. Only one trial, reporting the results from a total of 23 children and comparing an oral appliance to no treatment, was suitable for inclusion in the review. The trial assessed apnoea-hypopnoea, daytime symptoms (sleepiness, irritability, tiredness, school problems, morning headache, thirstiness in the morning, oral breathing and nasal stuffiness) and night-time symptoms (habitual snoring, restless sleep and nightmares measured by questionnaire). Results were inconsistent across outcomes measures and time points. The evidence was considered very low quality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of oral appliances and functional orthopaedic appliances for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea in children. Oral appliances or functional orthopaedic appliances may be considered in specified cases as an auxiliary in the treatment of children who have craniofacial anomalies which are risk factors for apnoea.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Are oral appliances and functional orthopaedic appliances effective and safe for treating children with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome?" } ]
query-laysum	7319	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHigher intakes of foods containing omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA), such as fish, during pregnancy have been associated with longer gestations and improved perinatal outcomes. This is an update of a review that was first published in 2006.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of omega-3 LCPUFA, as supplements or as dietary additions, during pregnancy on maternal, perinatal, and neonatal outcomes and longer-term outcomes for mother and child.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (16 August 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing omega-3 fatty acids (as supplements or as foods, stand-alone interventions, or with a co-intervention) during pregnancy with placebo or no omega-3, and studies or study arms directly comparing omega-3 LCPUFA doses or types. Trials published in abstract form were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias in trials and assessed quality of evidence for prespecified birth/infant, maternal, child/adult and health service outcomes using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nIn this update, we included 70 RCTs (involving 19,927 women at low, mixed or high risk of poor pregnancy outcomes) which compared omega-3 LCPUFA interventions (supplements and food) compared with placebo or no omega-3. Overall study-level risk of bias was mixed, with selection and performance bias mostly at low risk, but there was high risk of attrition bias in some trials. Most trials were conducted in upper-middle or high-income countries; and nearly half the trials included women at increased/high risk for factors which might increase the risk of adverse maternal and birth outcomes.\nPreterm birth < 37 weeks (13.4% versus 11.9%; risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.97; 26 RCTs, 10,304 participants; high-quality evidence) and early preterm birth < 34 weeks (4.6% versus 2.7%; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.77; 9 RCTs, 5204 participants; high-quality evidence) were both lower in women who received omega-3 LCPUFA compared with no omega-3. Prolonged gestation > 42 weeks was probably increased from 1.6% to 2.6% in women who received omega-3 LCPUFA compared with no omega-3 (RR 1.61 95% CI 1.11 to 2.33; 5141 participants; 6 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence).\nFor infants, there was a possibly reduced risk of perinatal death (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.03; 10 RCTs, 7416 participants; moderate-quality evidence: 62/3715 versus 83/3701 infants) and possibly fewer neonatal care admissions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.03; 9 RCTs, 6920 participants; moderate-quality evidence - 483/3475 infants versus 519/3445 infants). There was a reduced risk of low birthweight (LBW) babies (15.6% versus 14%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99; 15 trials, 8449 participants; high-quality evidence); but a possible small increase in large-for-gestational age (LGA) babies (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.36; 6 RCTs, 3722 participants; moderate-quality evidence, for omega-3 LCPUFA compared with no omega-3. Little or no difference in small-for-gestational age or intrauterine growth restriction (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.13; 8 RCTs, 6907 participants; moderate-quality evidence) was seen.\nFor the maternal outcomes, there is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of omega-3 on induction post-term (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.98; 3 trials, 2900 participants; low-quality evidence), maternal serious adverse events (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.72; 2 trials, 2690 participants; low-quality evidence), maternal admission to intensive care (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.63; 2 trials, 2458 participants; low-quality evidence), or postnatal depression (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.77; 2 trials, 2431 participants; low-quality evidence). Mean gestational length was greater in women who received omega-3 LCPUFA (mean difference (MD) 1.67 days, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.39; 41 trials, 12,517 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and pre-eclampsia may possibly be reduced with omega-3 LCPUFA (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.01; 20 trials, 8306 participants; low-quality evidence).\nFor the child/adult outcomes, very few differences between antenatal omega-3 LCPUFA supplementation and no omega-3 were observed in cognition, IQ, vision, other neurodevelopment and growth outcomes, language and behaviour (mostly low-quality to very low-quality evidence). The effect of omega-3 LCPUFA on body mass index at 19 years (MD 0, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.83; 1 trial, 243 participants; very low-quality evidence) was uncertain. No data were reported for development of diabetes in the children of study participants.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn the overall analysis, preterm birth < 37 weeks and early preterm birth < 34 weeks were reduced in women receiving omega-3 LCPUFA compared with no omega-3. There was a possibly reduced risk of perinatal death and of neonatal care admission, a reduced risk of LBW babies; and possibly a small increased risk of LGA babies with omega-3 LCPUFA.\nFor our GRADE quality assessments, we assessed most of the important perinatal outcomes as high-quality (e.g. preterm birth) or moderate-quality evidence (e.g. perinatal death). For the other outcome domains (maternal, child/adult and health service outcomes) GRADE ratings ranged from moderate to very low, with over half rated as low. Reasons for downgrading across the domain were mostly due to design limitations and imprecision.\nOmega-3 LCPUFA supplementation during pregnancy is an effective strategy for reducing the incidence of preterm birth, although it probably increases the incidence of post-term pregnancies. More studies comparing omega-3 LCPUFA and placebo (to establish causality in relation to preterm birth) are not needed at this stage. A further 23 ongoing trials are still to report on over 5000 women, so no more RCTs are needed that compare omega-3 LCPUFA against placebo or no intervention. However, further follow-up of completed trials is needed to assess longer-term outcomes for mother and child, to improve understanding of metabolic, growth and neurodevelopment pathways in particular, and to establish if, and how, outcomes vary by different types of omega-3 LCPUFA, timing and doses; or by characteristics of women.\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": "Do omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) taken during pregnancy - either as supplements or as dietary additions in food (such as some types of fish) - improve health outcomes for babies and their mothers? This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was first published in 2006." } ]
query-laysum	7320	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRisky consumption of alcohol is a global problem. More than 3.3 million deaths annually are associated with risky use of alcohol, and global alcohol consumption continues to increase. People who have high alcohol consumption often require planned and emergency surgical procedures.\nRisky drinking is associated with increased postoperative complications such as infections, cardiopulmonary complications, and bleeding episodes. Alcohol causes disorders of the liver, pancreas, and nervous system. Stopping consumption of alcohol can normalize these organ systems to some degree and may reduce the occurrence of complications after surgery.\nThis review was first published in 2012 and was updated in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions on rates of postoperative complications and alcohol consumption.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up until 21 September 2018: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL via EBSCOhost; and two trials registers. We scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials and any identified relevant systematic reviews for further references to additional trials. When necessary, we contacted trial authors to ask for additional information.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions on postoperative complications and alcohol consumption. We included participants with risky consumption of alcohol who were undergoing all types of elective or acute surgical procedures under general or regional anaesthesia or sedation, who were offered a perioperative alcohol cessation intervention or no intervention.\nWe defined 'risky drinking' as alcohol consumption equivalent to more than 3 alcoholic units (AU)/d or 21 AU/week (with 1 AU containing 12 grams of ethanol) with or without symptoms of alcohol abuse or dependency. This corresponds to the amount of alcohol associated with increased postoperative complication rates in most clinical studies.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used guidance provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We presented main outcomes as dichotomous variables in a meta-analysis. When data were available, we conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses to explore the risk of bias. Primary outcome measures were postoperative complications and in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were successful quitting at the end of the programme, postoperative alcohol use, and length of hospital stay. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included in this updated review one new study (70 participants), resulting in a total of three RCTs (140 participants who drank 3 to 40 AU/d). All three studies were of moderate to good quality. All studies evaluated the effects of intensive alcohol cessation interventions, including pharmacological strategies for alcohol withdrawal symptoms, patient education, and relapse prophylaxis. We identified one ongoing study.\nOverall, 53 of the 122 participants from three studies who underwent surgery developed any type of postoperative complication that required treatment. Of 61 participants in the intervention groups, 20 had complications, compared with 33 of 61 participants in the control groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.96). Results show differences between the three clinical studies regarding outcome measurement and intensity of the interventions. However, all alcohol cessation programmes were intensive and included pharmacological therapy. The overall quality of evidence for this outcome is moderate.\nIn-hospital and 30-day postoperative mortality rates were low in the three studies. Researchers reported one death among 61 participants in the intervention groups, and three deaths among 61 participants in the control groups (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.96). The quality of evidence for this outcome is low.\nInvestigators describe more successful quitters at the end of the intervention programme than among controls. Forty-one out of 70 participants in the intervention groups successfully quit drinking compared with only five out of 70 participants in the control groups (RR 8.22, 95% CI 1.67 to 40.44). The quality of evidence for this outcome is moderate.\nAll three studies reported postoperative alcohol consumption (grams of alcohol/week) at the end of the programme as median and range values; therefore it was not possible to estimate the mean and the standard deviation (SD). We performed no meta-analysis. All three studies reported length of stay, and none of these studies described a significant difference in length of stay. Data were insufficient for review authors to perform a meta-analysis. No studies reported on the prevalence of participants without risky drinking in the longer term.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis systematic review assessed the efficacy of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions for postoperative complications and alcohol consumption. All three studies showed a significant reduction in the number of participants who quit drinking alcohol during the intervention period. Intensive alcohol cessation interventions offered for four to eight weeks to participants undergoing all types of surgical procedures to achieve complete alcohol cessation before surgery probably reduced the number of postoperative complications. Data were insufficient for review authors to assess their effects on postoperative mortality. No studies reported an effect on length of stay, and no studies addressed the prevalence of risky drinking in the longer term.\nIncluded studies were few and reported small sample sizes; therefore one should be careful about drawing firm conclusions based on these study results. All three studies were conducted in Denmark, and most participants were men. The included participants may represent a selective group, as they could have been more motivated and/or more interested in participating in clinical research or otherwise different, and effects may have been overestimated for both intervention and control groups in these studies. Trial results indicate that these studies are difficult to perform, that strong research competencies are necessary for future studies, and that further evaluation of perioperative alcohol cessation interventions in high-quality randomized controlled trials is needed. Once published and assessed, the one 'ongoing' study identified may alter the conclusions of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence is current to 21 September 2018." } ]
query-laysum	7321	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSome clinicians believe that routine episiotomy, a surgical cut of the vagina and perineum, will prevent serious tears during childbirth. On the other hand, an episiotomy guarantees perineal trauma and sutures.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects on mother and baby of a policy of selective episiotomy ('only if needed') compared with a policy of routine episiotomy ('part of routine management') for vaginal births.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (14 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selective versus routine use of episiotomy, irrespective of parity, setting or surgical type of episiotomy. We included trials where either unassisted or assisted vaginal births were intended. Quasi-RCTs, trials using a cross-over design or those published in abstract form only were not eligible for inclusion in this review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third author mediated where there was no clear consensus. We observed good practice for data analysis and interpretation where trialists were review authors. We used fixed-effect models unless heterogeneity precluded this, expressed results as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nThis updated review includes 12 studies (6177 women), 11 in women in labour for whom a vaginal birth was intended, and one in women where an assisted birth was anticipated. Two were trials each with more than 1000 women (Argentina and the UK), and the rest were smaller (from Canada, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Malaysia, Pakistan, Columbia and Saudi Arabia). Eight trials included primiparous women only, and four trials were in both primiparous and multiparous women. For risk of bias, allocation was adequately concealed and reported in nine trials; sequence generation random and adequately reported in three trials; blinding of outcomes adequate and reported in one trial, blinding of participants and personnel reported in one trial.\nFor women where an unassisted vaginal birth was anticipated, a policy of selective episiotomy may result in 30% fewer women experiencing severe perineal/vaginal trauma (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; 5375 women; eight RCTs; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if there is a difference for blood loss at delivery (an average of 27 mL less with selective episiotomy, 95% CI from 75 mL less to 20 mL more; two trials, 336 women, very low-certainty evidence). Both selective and routine episiotomy have little or no effect on infants with Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (four trials, no events; 3908 women, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference in perineal infection (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.82, three trials, 1467 participants, low-certainty evidence).\nFor pain, we do not know if selective episiotomy compared with routine results in fewer women with moderate or severe perineal pain (measured on a visual analogue scale) at three days postpartum (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.05, one trial, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) dyspareunia (RR1.14, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.53, three trials, 1107 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) urinary incontinence (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.44, three trials, 1107 participants, low-certainty evidence). One trial reported genital prolapse at three years postpartum. There was no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.41; 365 women; one trial, low certainty evidence). Other outcomes relating to long-term effects were not reported (urinary fistula, rectal fistula, and faecal incontinence). Subgroup analyses by parity (primiparae versus multiparae) and by surgical method (midline versus mediolateral episiotomy) did not identify any modifying effects. Pain was not well assessed, and women's preferences were not reported.\nOne trial examined selective episiotomy compared with routine episiotomy in women where an operative vaginal delivery was intended in 175 women, and did not show clear difference on severe perineal trauma between the restrictive and routine use of episiotomy, but the analysis was underpowered.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn women where no instrumental delivery is intended, selective episiotomy policies result in fewer women with severe perineal/vaginal trauma. Other findings, both in the short or long term, provide no clear evidence that selective episiotomy policies results in harm to mother or baby.\nThe review thus demonstrates that believing that routine episiotomy reduces perineal/vaginal trauma is not justified by current evidence. Further research in women where instrumental delivery is intended may help clarify if routine episiotomy is useful in this particular group. These trials should use better, standardised outcome assessment methods.\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": "Normal birth can cause tears to the vagina and the surrounding tissue, usually as the baby's head is born, and sometimes these tears extend to the rectum. These are repaired surgically, but take time to heal. To avoid these severe tears, doctors have recommended making a surgical cut to the perineum with scissors or scalpel to prevent severe tearing and facilitate the birth. This intervention, known as an episiotomy, is used as a routine care policy during births in some countries. Both a tear and an episiotomy need sutures, and can result in severe pain, bleeding, infection, pain with sex, and can contribute to long term urinary incontinence." } ]
query-laysum	7322	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe effectiveness of interventions to increase influenza vaccination uptake in people aged 60 years and older varies by country and participant characteristics. This review updates versions published in 2010 and 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess access, provider, system, and societal interventions to increase the uptake of influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years and older in the community.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and ERIC for this update, as well as WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing studies to 7 December 2017. We also searched reference lists of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of interventions to increase influenza vaccination in people aged 60 years or older in the community.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as specified by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 3 new RCTs for this update (total 61 RCTs; 1,055,337 participants). Trials involved people aged 60 years and older living in the community in high-income countries. Heterogeneity limited some meta-analyses. We assessed studies as at low risk of bias for randomisation (38%), allocation concealment (11%), blinding (44%), and selective reporting (100%). Half (51%) had missing data. We assessed the evidence as low-quality. We identified three levels of intervention intensity: low (e.g. postcards), medium (e.g. personalised phone calls), and high (e.g. home visits, facilitators).\nIncreasing community demand (12 strategies, 41 trials, 53 study arms, 767,460 participants)\nOne successful intervention that could be meta-analysed was client reminders or recalls by letter plus leaflet or postcard compared to reminder (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.15; 3 studies; 64,200 participants). Successful interventions tested by single studies were patient outreach by retired teachers (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.79 to 6.22); invitations by clinic receptionists (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.55 to 4.76); nurses or pharmacists educating and nurses vaccinating patients (OR 152.95, 95% CI 9.39 to 2490.67); medical students counselling patients (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.35); and multiple recall questionnaires (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.24).\nSome interventions could not be meta-analysed due to significant heterogeneity: 17 studies tested simple reminders (the 95% CI was entirely above unity in 11 trials implying all 11 interventions increased vaccination rates); 16 tested personalised reminders (the 95% CI was entirely above unity in 12 trials implying all 12 interventions increased vaccination rates ); 2 investigated customised compared to form letters (the 95% CI was above unity in both trials implying both interventions increased vaccination rates); and 4 studies examined the impact of health risk appraisals (the 95% CI was above unity in all 4 trials implying all 4 interventions increased vaccination rates). One study of a lottery for free groceries was not effective.\nEnhancing vaccination access (6 strategies, 8 trials, 10 arms, 9353 participants)\nWe meta-analysed results from 2 studies of home visits (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.61), and 2 studies that tested free vaccine compared to patient payment for vaccine (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.98 to 2.82). We were unable to conduct meta-analyses of 2 studies of home visits by nurses plus a physician care plan (the 95% CI was entirely above unity in both trials implying both interventions increased vaccination rates) and 2 studies of free vaccine compared to no intervention (the 95% CI was entirely above unity in both trials implying both interventions increased vaccination rates). One study of group visits (OR 27.2, 95% CI 1.60 to 463.3) was effective, and 1 study of home visits compared to safety interventions was not.\nProvider- or system-based interventions (11 strategies, 15 trials, 17 arms, 278,524 participants)\nOne successful intervention that could be meta-analysed focused on payments to physicians (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.77). Successful interventions tested by individual studies were: reminding physicians to vaccinate all patients (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.99); posters in clinics presenting vaccination rates and encouraging competition between doctors (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.22); and chart reviews and benchmarking to the rates achieved by the top 10% of physicians (OR 3.43, 95% CI 2.37 to 4.97).\nWe were unable to meta-analyse 4 studies that looked at physician reminders (the 95% CI was entirely above unity in 3 trials implying all 3 interventions increased vaccination rates) and 3 studies of facilitator encouragement of vaccination (the 95% CI was entirely above unity in 2 trials implying both interventions increased vaccination rates). Interventions that were not effective were: comparing letters on discharge from hospital to letters to general practitioners; posters plus postcards versus posters alone; educational reminders, academic detailing, and peer comparisons compared to mailed educational materials; educational outreach plus feedback to teams versus written feedback; and an intervention to increase staff vaccination rates.\nInterventions at the societal level\nNo studies reported on societal-level interventions.\nStudy funding sources\nStudies were funded by government health organisations (n = 33), foundations (n = 9), organisations that provided healthcare services in the studies (n = 3), and a pharmaceutical company offering free vaccines (n = 1). Fifteen studies did not report study funding sources.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified interventions that demonstrated significant positive effects of low (postcards), medium (personalised phone calls), and high (home visits, facilitators) intensity that increase community demand for vaccination, enhance access, and improve provider/system response. The overall GRADE assessment of the evidence was moderate quality. Conclusions are unchanged from the 2014 review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We included three new trials (15,993 participants) for this update; the review now includes a total of 61 trials with 1,055,337 participants. All participants were aged 60 years or older, living in the community." } ]
query-laysum	7323	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with adverse health outcomes for mothers and their infants both perinatally and long term. Women with a history of GDM are at risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies and may benefit from intervention in the interconception period to improve maternal and infant health outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interconception care for women with a history of GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (7 April 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials, including quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials evaluating any protocol of interconception care with standard care or other forms of interconception care for women with a history of GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed study eligibility. In future updates of this review, at least two review authors will extract data and assess the risk of bias of included studies; the quality of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nNo eligible published trials were identified. We identified a completed randomised controlled trial that was designed to evaluate the effects of a diet and exercise intervention compared with standard care in women with a history of GDM, however to date, it has only published results on women who were pregnant at randomisation (and not women in the interconception period). We also identified an ongoing trial, in obese women with a history of GDM planning a subsequent pregnancy, which is assessing the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention, supported with liraglutide treatment, compared with usual care. We also identified a trial that was designed to evaluate the effects of a weight loss and exercise intervention compared with lifestyle education also in obese women with a history of GDM planning a subsequent pregnancy, however it has not yet been published. These trials will be re-considered for inclusion in the next review update.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe role of interconception care for women with a history of GDM remains unclear. Randomised controlled trials are required evaluating different forms and protocols of interconception care for these women on perinatal and long-term maternal and infant health outcomes, acceptability of such interventions and cost-effectiveness.\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": "Because there are no studies currently available, there is not enough evidence at present to say if interconception care for women with a history of GDM can help to improve the health of mothers and their infants. More high-quality studies are needed, which assess both short- and long-term health outcomes for women and their babies, as well as evaluating the impact on the health services." } ]
query-laysum	7324	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPostoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most frequent and potentially life-threatening complications following pancreatic surgery. Fibrin sealants have been used in some centres to reduce POPF rate. However, the use of fibrin sealant during pancreatic surgery is controversial. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of fibrin sealant use for the prevention of POPF (grade B or C) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery compared to no fibrin sealant use.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and five trials registers on 09 March 2023, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared fibrin sealant (fibrin glue or fibrin sealant patch) versus control (no fibrin sealant or placebo) in people undergoing pancreatic surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 14 RCTs, randomising 1989 participants, comparing fibrin sealant use versus no fibrin sealant use for different locations: stump closure reinforcement (eight trials), pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement (five trials), or main pancreatic duct occlusion (two trials). Six RCTs were carried out in single centres; two in dual centres; and six in multiple centres. One RCT was conducted in Australia; one in Austria; two in France; three in Italy; one in Japan; two in the Netherlands; two in South Korea; and two in the USA. The mean age of the participants ranged from 50.0 years to 66.5 years. All RCTs were at high risk of bias.\nApplication of fibrin sealants to pancreatic stump closure reinforcement after distal pancreatectomy\nWe included eight RCTs involving 1119 participants: 559 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 560 to the control group after distal pancreatectomy. Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the rate of POPF (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.21; 5 studies, 1002 participants; low-certainty evidence) and overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.48; 4 studies, 893 participants; low-certainty evidence). After fibrin sealant use, approximately 199 people (155 to 256 people) out of 1000 developed POPF compared with 212 people out of 1000 when no fibrin sealant was used. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1051 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and total length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.99 days, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.82; 2 studies, 371 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Fibrin sealant use may reduce the reoperation rate slightly (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.90; 3 studies, 623 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in five studies (732 participants), and there were no serious adverse events related to fibrin sealant use (low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report quality of life or cost-effectiveness.\nApplication of fibrin sealants to pancreatic anastomosis reinforcement after pancreaticoduodenectomy\nWe included five RCTs involving 519 participants: 248 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 271 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on the rate of POPF (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.48; 3 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence), postoperative mortality (Peto OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.06; 5 studies, 517 participants; very low-certainty evidence), reoperation rate (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.66; 3 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and total hospital cost (MD -1489.00 US dollars, 95% CI -3256.08 to 278.08; 1 study, 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). After fibrin sealant use, approximately 130 people (70 to 240 people) out of 1000 developed POPF compared with 97 people out of 1000 when no fibrin sealant was used. Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference both in overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19; 4 studies, 447 participants; low-certainty evidence) and in total length of hospital stay (MD -0.33 days, 95% CI -2.30 to 1.63; 4 studies, 447 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in two studies (194 participants), and there were no serious adverse events related to fibrin sealant use (very low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report quality of life.\nApplication of fibrin sealants to pancreatic duct occlusion after pancreaticoduodenectomy\nWe included two RCTs involving 351 participants: 188 were randomised to the fibrin sealant group and 163 to the control group after pancreaticoduodenectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality (Peto OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.13; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence), overall postoperative morbidity (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.02; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and reoperation rate (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.41; 2 studies, 351 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the total length of hospital stay (median 16 to 17 days versus 17 days; 2 studies, 351 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in one study (169 participants; low-certainty evidence): more participants developed diabetes mellitus when fibrin sealants were applied to pancreatic duct occlusion, both at three months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 10.8% control group; 29 participants versus 9 participants) and 12 months' follow-up (33.7% fibrin sealant group versus 14.5% control group; 29 participants versus 12 participants). The studies did not report POPF, quality of life, or cost-effectiveness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the current available evidence, fibrin sealant use may result in little to no difference in the rate of POPF in people undergoing distal pancreatectomy. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of fibrin sealant use on the rate of POPF in people undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. The effect of fibrin sealant use on postoperative mortality is uncertain in people undergoing either distal pancreatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How is this prevented?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Surgical 'glue' – also called 'surgical tissue adhesive' – is a product derived from human or animal blood, and is used to close wounds and help control bleeding in various surgeries. Surgical glue has been used in recent years to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula after pancreatic surgery. However, its effectiveness and safety in this type of surgery is still uncertain." } ]
query-laysum	7325	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIt has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19.\nObjectives\nTo update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity.\nData collection and analysis\nPairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes.\nMain results\nThis update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022.\nThe mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies.\nTwenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out.\nWe assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment.\nEfficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19\nAt day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nThe effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nTocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nTocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nEfficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19\nThe evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28.\nEvidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale.\nAn additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Our confidence in the results of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab is limited because of the low number of studies conducted and the small number of people included in these studies. We were unable to assess the variation in effects due to changes in the standard treatment provided, and we were also unable to see if effects were different in people of different ages or genders.\nFurther, most of the studies included in the review were conducted before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale." } ]
query-laysum	7326	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute bacterial meningitis remains a disease with high mortality and morbidity rates. However, with prompt and adequate antimicrobial and supportive treatment, the chances for survival have improved, especially among infants and children. Careful management of fluid and electrolyte balance is an important supportive therapy. Both over- and under-hydration are associated with adverse outcomes. This is the latest update of a review first published in 2005 and updated in 2008 and 2014.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate treatment of acute bacterial meningitis with differing volumes of initial fluid administration (up to 72 hours after first presentation) and the effects on death and neurological sequelae.\nSearch methods\nFor this 2016 update we searched the following databases up to March 2016: the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Global Health, and Web of Science.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of differing volumes of fluid given in the initial management of bacterial meningitis were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nAll four of the original review authors extracted data and assessed trials for quality in the first publication of this review (one author, ROW, has passed away since the original review; see Acknowledgements). The current authors combined data for meta-analysis using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data or mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We used a fixed-effect statistical model. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included three trials with a total of 420 children; there were no trials in adult populations. The largest of the three trials was conducted in settings with high mortality rates and was judged to have low risk of bias for all domains, except performance bias which was high risk. The other two smaller trials were not of high quality.The meta-analysis found no significant difference between the maintenance-fluid and restricted-fluid groups in number of deaths (RR 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.27; 407 participants; low quality of evidence) or acute severe neurological sequelae (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; 407 participants; low quality of evidence). However, when neurological sequelae were defined further, there was a statistically significant difference in favour of the maintenance-fluid group for spasticity (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.93; 357 participants); and seizures at both 72 hours (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83; 357 participants) and 14 days (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.88; 357 participants). There was very low quality of evidence favouring maintenance fluid over restrictive fluid for chronic severe neurological sequelae at three months follow-up (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.89; 351 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe quality of evidence regarding fluid therapy in children with acute bacterial meningitis is low to very low and more RCTs need to be conducted. There is insufficient evidence to guide practice as to whether maintenance fluids should be chosen over restricted fluids in the treatment of acute bacterial meningitis.\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": "Bacterial meningitis is an infection of the fluid in the spinal cord and surrounding the brain. Antibiotics are prescribed as treatment. Supportive care includes other drugs and the regulation of fluid intake. There has been disagreement about whether fluids should be restricted or unrestricted as there are potential risks from giving too much fluid (brain swelling) as well as too little fluid (shock)." } ]
query-laysum	7327	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMethotrexate (MTX) is a disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) used as a first line agent for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Pharmacologically, it is classified as an antimetabolite due to its antagonistic effect on folic acid metabolism. Many patients treated with MTX experience mucosal, gastrointestinal, hepatic or haematologic side effects. Supplementation with folic or folinic acid during treatment with MTX may ameliorate these side effects.\nObjectives\nTo identify trials of supplementation with folic acid or folinic acid during MTX therapy for rheumatoid arthritis and to assess the benefits and harms of folic acid and folinic acid (a) in reducing the mucosal, gastrointestinal (GI), hepatic and haematologic side effects of MTX, and (b) whether or not folic or folinic acid supplementation has any effect on MTX benefit.\nSearch methods\nWe originally performed MEDLINE searches, from January 1966 to June 1999. During the update of this review, we searched additional databases and used a sensitive search strategy designed to retrieve all trials on folic acid or folinic acid for rheumatoid arthritis from 1999 up to 2 March 2012.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected all double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) in which adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis were treated with MTX (at a dose equal to or less than 25 mg/week) concurrently with folate supplementation. In this update of the review we only included trials using 'low dose' folic or folinic acid (a starting dose of ≤ 7 mg weekly).\nData collection and analysis\nData were extracted from the trials, and the trials were independently assessed for risk of bias using a predetermined set of criteria.\nMain results\nSix trials with 624 patients were eligible for inclusion. Most studies had low or unclear risk of bias for key domains. The quality of the evidence was rated as 'moderate' for each outcome as assessed by GRADE, with the exception of haematologic side effects which were rated as 'low'. There was no significant heterogeneity between trials, including where folic acid and folinic acid studies were pooled.\nFor patients supplemented with any form of exogenous folate (either folic or folinic acid) whilst on MTX therapy for rheumatoid arthritis, a 26% relative (9% absolute) risk reduction was seen for the incidence of GI side effects such as nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92; P = 0.008). Folic and folinic acid also appear to be protective against abnormal serum transaminase elevation caused by MTX, with a 76.9% relative (16% absolute) risk reduction (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.34; P < 0.00001), as well as reducing patient withdrawal from MTX for any reason (60.8% relative (15.2% absolute) risk reduction, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.53; P < 0.00001).\nWe analysed the effect of folic or folinic acid on the incidence of stomatitis / mouth sores, and whilst showing a trend towards reduction in risk, the results were not statistically significant (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.06)\nIt was not possible to draw meaningful conclusions on the effect of folic or folinic acid on haematologic side effects of methotrexate due to small numbers of events and poor reporting of this outcome in included trials.\nIt does not appear that supplementation with either folic or folinic acid has a statistically significant effect on the efficacy of MTX in treating RA (as measured by RA disease activity parameters such as tender and swollen joint counts, or physician's global assessment scores).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results support a protective effect of supplementation with either folic or folinic acid for patients with rheumatoid arthritis during treatment with MTX.\nThere was a clincally important significant reduction shown in the incidence of GI side effects, hepatic dysfunction (asmeasured by elevated serum transaminase levels) as well as a clincally important significant reduction in discontinuation of MTX treatment for any reason. A trend towards a reduction in stomatitis was demonstrated however this did not reach statistical significance.\nThis updated review with its focus on lower doses of folic acid and folinic acid and updated assessment of risk of bias aimed to give a more precise and more clinically relevant estimate of the benefit of folate supplementation for patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"In people with rheumatoid arthritis who take methotrexate (MTX)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "- Taking either folic or folinic acid probably improves some side effects of MTX such as nausea and abdominal pain\n- Taking either folic or folinic acid probably reduces the chance of developing abnormal liver blood tests\n- Taking either folic or folinic acid probably helps people continue on their MTX treatment\n- Taking either folic or folinic acid may improve some side effects of MTX such as mouth sores\n- We are unable to ascertain whether or not taking folic or folinic acid with MTX prevents neutropenia (problems with producing white blood cells)\n- Taking folic or folinic acid with MTX probably has no effect on how well MTX is able to treat rheumatoid arthritis." } ]
query-laysum	7328	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHepatitis B vaccine has been recommended for use in people living with HIV (PLHIV) mostly because of the similarities in routes of infection and their prevalence in the same geographic areas. PLHIV may not develop sero-protection after receiving standard hepatitis B vaccine due to their compromised immune status.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of hepatitis B virus vaccine in PLHIV compared to placebo or no vaccine.\nSearch methods\nWe searched 6 English language databases in July 2012, and updated the search in June 2013 and August 2014. We searched the grey literature, conference proceedings, specialised web sites, and contacted experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of hepatitis B vaccine compared to placebo or no vaccine, evaluating relevant outcomes of efficacy and safety.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently sought and extracted data on study design, participants, hepatitis B infection, hepatitis B related morbidity and mortality, anti-HBs immunogenicity and adverse effects related to vaccines from published articles or through correspondence with authors. Data were analysed qualitatively.\nMain results\nOne double-blind randomised controlled trial with 26 participants who were on antiretroviral therapy (ART), comparing hepatitis B vaccine to placebo conducted in Spain met our eligibility criteria and was included in this review. The study ran for three years and participants were followed up on a monthly basis. The study reported adequate humoral response to vaccine at 12 months and no local or systematic side effects in both intervention and control groups. This humoral response was lost when the participants stopped taking ART. The sample size of the study was small and the study was conducted in a high income setting unlike the areas of highest burden of hepatitis B and HIV co-infections.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence from this study is insufficient to support any recommendations regarding the use of hepatitis B vaccine in PLHIV. Neither does this evidence demonstrate that hepatitis B vaccine is unsafe in PLHIV. Further randomised controlled trials in high prevalence areas are required to generate evidence on the long term efficacy and safety of hepatitis B vaccine in PLHIV with and without ART. Different regimens and routes of administration should also be explored.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study Question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review seeks to determine whether vaccine for hepatitis B virus is effective in protecting people who have HIV against hepatitis B virus infection. It also seeks to determine if the vaccine is safe in people living with HIV." } ]
query-laysum	7329	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVenous ulcers (also known as varicose or venous stasis ulcers) are a chronic, recurring and debilitating condition that affects up to 1% of the population. Best practice documents and expert opinion suggests that the removal of devitalised tissue from venous ulcers (debridement) by any one of six methods helps to promote healing. However, to date there has been no review of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support this.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of different debriding methods or debridement versus no debridement, on the rate of debridement and wound healing in venous leg ulcers.\nSearch methods\nIn February 2015 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. In addition we handsearched conference proceedings, journals not cited in MEDLINE, and the bibliographies of all retrieved publications to identify potential studies. We made contact with the pharmaceutical industry to enquire about any completed studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs, either published or unpublished, which compared two methods of debridement or compared debridement with no debridement. We presented study results in a narrative form, as meta-analysis was not possible.\nData collection and analysis\nIndependently, two review authors completed all study selection, data extraction and assessment of trial quality; resolution of disagreements was completed by a third review author.\nMain results\nWe identified 10 RCTs involving 715 participants. Eight RCTs evaluated autolytic debridement and included the following agents or dressings: biocellulose wound dressing (BWD), non-adherent dressing, honey gel, hydrogel (gel formula), hydrofibre dressing, hydrocolloid dressings, dextranomer beads, Edinburgh University Solution of Lime (EUSOL) and paraffin gauze. Two RCTs evaluated enzymatic preparations and one evaluated biosurgical debridement. No RCTs evaluated surgical, sharp or mechanical methods of debridement, or debridement versus no debridement. Most trials were at a high risk of bias.\nThree RCTs assessed the number of wounds completely debrided. All three of these trials compared two different methods of autolytic debridement (234 participants), with two studies reporting statistically significant results: one study (100 participants) reported that 40/50 (80%) ulcers treated with dextranomer beads and 7/50 (14%) treated with EUSOL achieved complete debridement (RR 5.71, 95% CI 2.84 to 11.52); while the other trial (86 participants) reported the number of ulcers completely debrided as 31/46 (76%) for hydrogel versus 18/40 (45%) for paraffin gauze (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.99). One study (48 participants) reported that by 12 weeks, 15/18 (84%) ulcers treated with BWD had achieved a 75% to 100% clean, granulating wound bed versus 4/15 (26%) treated with non-adherent petrolatum emulsion-impregnated gauze.\nFour trials assessed the mean time to achieve debridement: one (86 participants) compared two autolytic debridement methods, two compared autolytic methods with enzymatic debridement (71 participants), and the last (12 participants) compared autolytic with biosurgical debridement; none of the results achieved statistical significance.\nTwo trials that assessed autolytic debridement methods reported the number of wounds healed at 12 weeks. One trial (108 participants) reported that 24/54 (44%) ulcers treated with honey healed versus 18/54 (33%) treated with hydrogel (RR (adjusted for baseline wound diameter) 1.38, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.88; P value 0.037). The second trial (48 participants) reported that 7/25 (28%) ulcers treated with BWD healed versus 7/23 (30%) treated with non-adherent dressing.\nReduction in wound size was assessed in five trials (444 participants) in which two autolytic methods were compared. Results were statistically significant in one three-armed trial (153 participants) when cadexomer iodine was compared to paraffin gauze (mean difference 24.9 cm², 95% CI 7.27 to 42.53, P value 0.006) and hydrocolloid compared to paraffin gauze (mean difference 23.8 cm², 95% CI 5.48 to 42.12, P value 0.01). A second trial that assessed reduction in wound size based its results on median differences and, at four weeks, produced a statistically significantly result that favoured honey over hydrogel (P value < 0.001). The other three trials reported no statistically significant results for reduction in wound size, although one trial reported that the mean percentage reduction in wound area was greater at six and 12 weeks for BWD versus a non-adherent dressing (44% versus 24% week 6; 74% versus 54% week 12).\nPain was assessed in six trials (544 participants) that compared two autolytic debridement methods, but the results were not statistically significant. No serious adverse events were reported in any trial.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited evidence to suggest that actively debriding a venous leg ulcer has a clinically significant impact on healing. The overall small number of participants, low number of studies and lack of meta-analysis in this review precludes any strong conclusions of benefit. Comparisons of different autolytic agents (hydrogel versus paraffin gauze; Dextranomer beads versus EUSOL and BWD versus non-adherent dressings) and Larvae versus hydrogel all showed statistically significant results for numbers of wounds debrided. Larger trials with follow up to healing are required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Objectives\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We assessed evidence from medical research to try to determine how effective these different methods of debridement are in debriding wounds. We also wanted to understand what effect, if any, debridement has on the healing of venous ulcers, and whether any method of debridement is better than no debridement when it comes to wound healing." } ]
query-laysum	7330	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHip fractures are a major healthcare problem, presenting a huge challenge and burden to patients, healthcare systems and society. The increased proportion of older adults in the world population means that the absolute number of hip fractures is rising rapidly across the globe. The majority of hip fractures are treated surgically. This review evaluates evidence for types of internal fixation implants used in joint-preserving surgery for intracapsular hip fractures.\nObjectives\nTo determine the relative effects (benefits and harms) of different implants for the internal fixation of intracapsular hip fractures in older adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, and National Technical Information Service in July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted backward-citation searches.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing implants used for internal fixation of fragility intracapsular proximal femoral fractures in older adults. Types of implants were smooth pins (these include pins with fold-out hooks), screws, or fixed angle plates. We excluded studies in which all or most fractures were caused by specific pathologies other than osteoporosis or were the result of a high energy trauma.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias which was checked by a second review author. We collected data for seven outcomes: activities of daily living (ADL), delirium, functional status, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mobility, mortality (reported within four months of surgery as early mortality, and at 12 months since surgery), and unplanned return to theatre for treating a complication resulting directly or indirectly from the primary procedure (such as deep infection or non-union). We assessed the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 38 studies (32 RCTs, six quasi-RCTs) with 8585 participants with 8590 intracapsular fractures. The mean ages of participants in the studies ranged from 60 to 84 years; 73% were women, and 38% of fractures were undisplaced.\nWe report here the findings of the four main comparisons, which were between different categories of implants.\nWe downgraded the certainty of the outcomes for imprecision (when data were available from insufficient numbers of participants or the confidence interval (CI) was wide), study limitations (e.g. high or unclear risks of bias), and inconsistency (when we noted substantial levels of statistical heterogeneity).\nSmooth pins versus fixed angle plate (four studies, 1313 participants)\nWe found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two implant types in independent mobility with no more than one walking stick (1 study, 112 participants), early mortality (1 study, 383 participants), mortality at 12 months (2 studies, 661 participants), and unplanned return to theatre (3 studies, 736 participants). No studies reported on ADL, delirium, functional status, or HRQoL.\nScrews versus fixed angle plates (11 studies, 2471 participants)\nWe found low-certainty evidence of no clinically important differences between the two implant types in functional status using WOMAC (MD -3.18, 95% CI -6.35 to -0.01; 2 studies, 498 participants; range of scores from 0 to 96, lower values indicate better function), and HRQoL using EQ-5D (MD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 2 studies, 521 participants; range -0.654 (worst), 0 (dead), 1 (best)). We also found low-certainty evidence showing little or no difference between the two implant types in mortality at 12 months (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.31; 7 studies, 1690 participants), and unplanned return to theatre (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.26; 11 studies, 2321 participants). We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two implant types in independent mobility (1 study, 70 participants), and early mortality (3 studies, 467 participants). No studies reported on ADL or delirium.\nScrews versus smooth pins (seven studies, 1119 participants)\nWe found low-certainty evidence of no or little difference between the two implant types in mortality at 12 months (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.35; 6 studies, 1005 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two implant types in early mortality (3 studies, 584 participants) and unplanned return to theatre (5 studies, 862 participants). No studies reported on ADL, delirium, functional status, HRQoL, or mobility.\nScrews or smooth pins versus fixed angle plates (15 studies, 3784 participants)\nIn this comparison, we combined data from the first two comparison groups. We found low-certainty evidence of no or little difference between the two groups of implants in mortality at 12 months (RR 1.04, 95% CI.083 to 1.31; 7 studies, 1690 participants) and unplanned return to theatre (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; 14 studies, 3057 participants). We found very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference between the two groups of implants in independent mobility (2 studies, 182 participants), and early mortality (4 studies, 850 participants). We found no additional evidence to support the findings for functional status or HRQoL as reported in 'Screws versus fixed angle plates'. No studies reported ADL or delirium.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between screws and fixed angle plates in functional status, HRQoL, mortality at 12 months, or unplanned return to theatre; and between screws and pins in mortality at 12 months. The limited and very low-certainty evidence for the outcomes for which data were available for the smooth pins versus fixed angle plates comparison, as well as the other outcomes for which data were available for the screws and fixed angle plates, and screws and pins comparisons means we have very little confidence in the estimates of effect for these outcomes. Additional RCTs would increase the certainty of the evidence. We encourage such studies to report outcomes consistent with the core outcome set for hip fracture, including long-term quality of life indicators such as ADL and mobility.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Screws compared with fixed angle plates\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "(11 studies, 2471 participants): we found no evidence of difference between these implants in hip function (ability to use the hip), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), death at 12 months, and additional surgery. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between these implants in independent walking, and early deaths." } ]
query-laysum	7331	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias relies on clinical assessment. There is a high prevalence of cognitive disorders, including undiagnosed dementia in secondary care settings. Short cognitive tests can be helpful in identifying those who require further specialist diagnostic assessment; however, there is a lack of consensus around the optimal tools to use in clinical practice. The Mini-Cog is a short cognitive test comprising three-item recall and a clock-drawing test that is used in secondary care settings.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective was to determine the accuracy of the Mini-Cog for detecting dementia in a secondary care setting. The secondary objectives were to investigate the heterogeneity of test accuracy in the included studies and potential sources of heterogeneity. These potential sources of heterogeneity will include the baseline prevalence of dementia in study samples, thresholds used to determine positive test results, the type of dementia (Alzheimer's disease dementia or all causes of dementia), and aspects of study design related to study quality.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following sources in September 2012, with an update to 12 March 2019: Cochrane Dementia Group Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), BIOSIS Previews (Web of Knowledge), Science Citation Index (ISI Web of Knowledge), PsycINFO (OvidSP), and LILACS (BIREME). We made no exclusions with regard to language of Mini-Cog administration or language of publication, using translation services where necessary.\nSelection criteria\nWe included cross-sectional studies and excluded case-control designs, due to the risk of bias. We selected those studies that included the Mini-Cog as an index test to diagnose dementia where dementia diagnosis was confirmed with reference standard clinical assessment using standardised dementia diagnostic criteria. We only included studies in secondary care settings (including inpatient and outpatient hospital participants).\nData collection and analysis\nWe screened all titles and abstracts generated by the electronic database searches. Two review authors independently checked full papers for eligibility and extracted data. We determined quality assessment (risk of bias and applicability) using the QUADAS-2 tool. We extracted data into two-by-two tables to allow calculation of accuracy metrics for individual studies, reporting the sensitivity, specificity, and 95% confidence intervals of these measures, summarising them graphically using forest plots.\nMain results\nThree studies with a total of 2560 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria, set in neuropsychology outpatient referrals, outpatients attending a general medicine clinic, and referrals to a memory clinic. Only n = 1415 (55.3%) of participants were included in the analysis to inform evaluation of Mini-Cog test accuracy, due to the selective use of available data by study authors. There were concerns related to high risk of bias with respect to patient selection, and unclear risk of bias and high concerns related to index test conduct and applicability. In all studies, the Mini-Cog was retrospectively derived from historic data sets. No studies included acute general hospital inpatients. The prevalence of dementia ranged from 32.2% to 87.3%. The sensitivities of the Mini-Cog in the individual studies were reported as 0.67 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 0.71), 0.60 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.72), and 0.87 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.90). The specificity of the Mini-Cog for each individual study was 0.87 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.92), 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.73), and 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00). We did not perform meta-analysis due to concerns related to risk of bias and heterogeneity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review identified only a limited number of diagnostic test accuracy studies using Mini-Cog in secondary care settings. Those identified were at high risk of bias related to patient selection and high concerns related to index test conduct and applicability. The evidence was indirect, as all studies evaluated Mini-Cog differently from the review question, where it was anticipated that studies would conduct Mini-Cog and independently but contemporaneously perform a reference standard assessment to diagnose dementia. The pattern of test accuracy varied across the three studies. Future research should evaluate Mini-Cog as a test in itself, rather than derived from other neuropsychological assessments. There is also a need for evaluation of the feasibility of the Mini-Cog for the detection of dementia to help adequately determine its role in the clinical pathway.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is recognising dementia important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Dementia is a common and important condition, and many of those living with dementia have never had the condition diagnosed. Diagnosis provides opportunities for social support, advance care planning and, in specific disease types, treatment with medication. However, incorrectly diagnosing dementia when it is not present (a false-positive result) can be distressing for the individual and their family and lead to a waste of resources in diagnostic tests." } ]
query-laysum	7332	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second updated version of the original Cochrane review published in the Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3.\nMost women with early cervical cancer (stages I to IIA) are cured with surgery or radiotherapy, or both. We performed this review originally because it was unclear whether cisplatin-based chemotherapy after surgery, radiotherapy or both, in women with early stage disease with risk factors for recurrence, was associated with additional survival benefits or risks.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy after radical hysterectomy, radiotherapy, or both in the treatment of early stage cervical cancer.\nSearch methods\nFor the original 2009 review, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOLOGICAL ABSTRACTS and CancerLit, the National Research Register and Clinical Trials register, with no language restriction. We handsearched abstracts of scientific meetings and other relevant publications. We extended the database searches to November 2011 for the first update and to September 2016 for the second update.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (after radical surgery, radiotherapy or both) with no adjuvant chemotherapy, in women with early stage cervical cancer (stage IA2-IIA) with at least one risk factor for recurrence.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data independently. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model, with death and disease progression as outcomes.\nMain results\nFor this second updated version we identified only one small trial reporting grade 4 toxicity results, without disease-free or overall survival data with a median follow-up of 16 months.\nFrom the first updated version, we identified three trials that were ongoing, and remain so in 2016.\nFour trials including 401 women with evaluable results with early cervical cancer were included in the meta-analyses. The median follow-up period in these trials ranged from 29 to 42 months. All women had undergone surgery first. Three trials compared chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone; and one trial compared chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone. It was not possible to perform subgroup analyses by stage or tumour size.\nCompared with adjuvant radiotherapy, chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy significantly reduced the risk of death (two trials, 297 women; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36 to 0.87) and disease progression (two trials, 297 women; HR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74), with no heterogeneity between trials (I² = 0% for both meta-analyses). Acute grade 4 toxicity occurred significantly more frequently in the chemotherapy plus radiotherapy group than in the radiotherapy group (three trials, 321 women; risk ratio (RR) 6.26, 95% CI 2.50 to 15.67). We considered the evidence for all three outcomes to be of a moderate quality, using the GRADE approach due to small numbers and limited follow-up in the included studies. In addition, it was not possible to separate data for bulky early stage disease.\nIn the one small trial that compared adjuvant chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy with adjuvant radiotherapy alone there was no difference in disease recurrence between the groups (one trial, 71 women; HR = 1.34; 95% CI 0.24 to 7.66) and overall survival was not reported. We considered this evidence to be of a low quality.\nNo trials compared adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy with no adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery for early cervical cancer with risk factors for recurrence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe addition of platinum-based chemotherapy to adjuvant radiotherapy (chemoradiation) may improve survival in women with early stage cervical cancer (IA2-IIA) and risk factors for recurrence. Adjuvant chemoradiation is associated with an increased risk of severe acute toxicity, although it is not clear whether this toxicity is significant in the long term due to a lack of long-term data. This evidence is limited by the small numbers and low to moderate methodological quality of the included studies. We await the results of three ongoing trials, which are likely to have an important impact on our confidence in this evidence.\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": "Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women. Most women with early stage cervical cancer (stages I to IIA) are cured with surgery or, radiotherapy, or both. Radiotherapy uses high energy x-rays to damage tumour cells. Chemotherapy (anti-cancer) drugs use different ways to stop tumour cells dividing so they stop growing or they die." } ]
query-laysum	7333	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and mostly acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are critical conditions. AHRF results from several systemic conditions and is associated with high mortality and morbidity in individuals of all ages. Inhaled nitric oxide (INO) has been used to improve oxygenation, but its role remains controversial. This Cochrane review was originally published in 2003, and has been updated in 2010 and 2016.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective was to examine the effects of administration of inhaled nitric oxide on mortality in adults and children with ARDS.\nSecondary objectives were to examine secondary outcomes such as pulmonary bleeding events, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay, etc. We conducted subgroup and sensitivity analyses, examined the role of bias and applied trial sequential analyses (TSAs) to examine the level of evidence.\nSearch methods\nIn this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015 Issue 11); MEDLINE (Ovid SP, to 18 November 2015), EMBASE (Ovid SP, to 18 November 2015), CAB, BIOSIS and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We handsearched the reference lists of the newest reviews and cross-checked them with our search of MEDLINE. We contacted the main authors of included studies to request any missed, unreported or ongoing studies. The search was run from inception until 18 November 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status, date of publication, blinding status, outcomes published or language. We contacted trial investigators and study authors to retrieve relevant and missing data.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion. Our primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. We performed several subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the effects of INO in adults and children and on various clinical and physiological outcomes. We presented pooled estimates of the effects of interventions as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias through assessment of trial methodological components and risk of random error through trial sequential analysis.\nMain results\nOur primary objective was to assess effects of INO on mortality. We found no statistically significant effects of INO on longest follow-up mortality: 250/654 deaths (38.2%) in the INO group compared with 221/589 deaths (37.5%) in the control group (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.19; I² statistic = 0%; moderate quality of evidence). We found no statistically significant effects of INO on mortality at 28 days: 202/587 deaths (34.4%) in the INO group compared with 166/518 deaths (32.0%) in the control group (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.27; I² statistic = 0%; moderate quality of evidence). In children, there was no statistically significant effects of INO on mortality: 25/89 deaths (28.1%) in the INO group compared with 34/96 deaths (35.4%) in the control group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.18; I² statistic = 22%; moderate quality of evidence).\nOur secondary objective was to assess the benefits and harms of INO. For partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2), we found significant improvement at 24 hours (mean difference (MD) 15.91, 95% CI 8.25 to 23.56; I² statistic = 25%; 11 trials, 614 participants; moderate quality of evidence). For the oxygenation index, we noted significant improvement at 24 hours (MD -2.31, 95% CI -2.73 to -1.89; I² statistic = 0%; five trials, 368 participants; moderate quality of evidence). For ventilator-free days, the difference was not statistically significant (MD -0.57, 95% CI -1.82 to 0.69; I² statistic = 0%; five trials, 804 participants; high quality of evidence). There was a statistically significant increase in renal failure in the INO groups (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.16; I² statistic = 0%; high quality of evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence is insufficient to support INO in any category of critically ill patients with AHRF. Inhaled nitric oxide results in a transient improvement in oxygenation but does not reduce mortality and may be harmful, as it seems to increase renal impairment.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We included in this updated review 14 trials with 1275 participants. We found the overall quality of trials to be moderate, with little information provided on how experiments were carried out. Results were limited, and most included trials were small. In most trials, we identified risk of misleading information. Thus, results must be interpreted with caution. The evidence is up-to-date to 18 November 2015." } ]
query-laysum	7334	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFatigue is a common and disabling symptom in people with a primary brain tumour (PBT). The effectiveness of interventions for treating clinically significant levels of fatigue in this population is unclear. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 4, 2016.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for adults with PBT and clinically significant (or high levels) of fatigue.\nSearch methods\nFor this updated review, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and checked the reference lists of included studies in April 2022. We also searched relevant conference proceedings, and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention in adults with PBT and fatigue, where fatigue was the primary outcome measure. We restricted inclusion specifically to studies that enrolled only participants with clinically significant levels of fatigue to improve the clinical utility of the findings.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (JD, DC) independently evaluated search results for the updated search. Two review authors (JD, SYK) extracted data from selected studies, and carried out a risk of bias assessment. We extracted data on fatigue, mood, cognition, quality of life and adverse events outcomes.\nMain results\nThe original review identified one study and this update identified a further two for inclusion. One study investigated the use of modafinil, one study the use of armodafinil and one study the use of dexamfetamine. We identified three ongoing studies.\nIn the original review, the single eligible trial compared modafinil to placebo for 37 participants with a high- or low-grade PBT. One new study compared two doses of armodafinil (150 mg and 250 mg) to placebo for 297 people with a high-grade glioma. The second new study compared dexamfetamine sulfate to placebo for 46 participants with a low- or high-grade PBT. The evidence was uncertain for both modafinil and dexamfetamine regarding fatigue outcome measures, compared to controls, at study endpoint. Two trials did not reach the planned recruitment target and therefore may not, in practice, have been adequately powered to detect a difference. These trials were at a low risk of bias across most areas. There was an unclear risk of bias related to the use of mean imputation for one study because the investigators did not analyse the impact of imputation on the results and information regarding baseline characteristics and randomisation were not clear. The certainty of the evidence measured using GRADE was very low across all three studies.\nThere was one identified study awaiting classification once data are available, which investigated the feasibility of 'health coaching' for people with a PBT experiencing fatigue. There were three ongoing studies that may be eligible for an update of this review, all investigating a non-pharmacological intervention for fatigue in people with PBT.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently insufficient evidence to draw reliable and generalisable conclusions regarding potential effectiveness or harm of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments for fatigue in people with PBT. More research is needed on how best to treat people with brain tumours with high fatigue.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We wanted to find out if treatments to help manage fatigue may improve a person's quality of life, their ability to tolerate cancer treatment (which in itself is associated with fatigue), and their ability to carry out social and day-to-day activities." } ]
query-laysum	7335	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPreterm birth remains the major risk factor for the development of intraventricular hemorrhage, an injury that occurs in 25% of very low birth weight infants. Intraventricular hemorrhage is thought to be venous in origin and intrinsic thromboses in the germinal matrix are likely to play a triggering role. Antithrombin, a glycoprotein synthesized in the liver, is the major plasma inhibitor of thrombin thus modulating blood coagulation. Very low birth weight newborn infants have low levels of antithrombin and the risk of developing intraventricular hemorrhage is increased by the presence of hypercoagulability in the first hours of life. The administration of anticoagulants such as antithrombin may offset the increased risk of developing intraventricular hemorrhage. Anticoagulants may also reduce the risk of developing parenchymal venous infarct, a condition known to complicate intraventricular hemorrhage.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether the prophylactic administration of antithrombin (started within the first 24 hours after birth) reduces the incidence of germinal matrix-intraventricular hemorrhage in very preterm neonates when compared to placebo, no treatment, or heparin.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015), MEDLINE (1996 to 22 November 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 22 November 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to 22 November 2015). No language restrictions were applied. We searched the abstracts of the major congresses in the field (Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Pediatric Academic Societies) from 2000 to 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster trials comparing the administration of early, i.e. within the first 24 hours of life, antithrombin in very preterm infants (gestational age < 32 weeks, any birth weight).\nData collection and analysis\nFor each of the included trials, two authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, antithrombin formulation (plasma-derived or recombinant), mode of administration, and duration of therapy, etc.) and assessed the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). The primary outcomes considered in this review are intraventricular hemorrhage and severe intraventricular hemorrhage.\nMain results\nTwo randomized controlled trials, for a total of 182 infants, met the inclusion criteria of this review. Both trials compared antithrombin with placebo. We found no significant differences in the rates of intraventricular hemorrhage (typical RR 1.30, CI 95% 0.87 to 1.93, typical RD 0.09, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.23; 2 studies, 175 infants; I² = 18% for RR and I² = 42% for RD) and severe intraventricular hemorrhage (typical RR 1.04, CI 95% 0.55 to 1.94; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI −0.11 to 0.12; 2 studies, 175 infants; I² = 0% for RR and I² = 0% for RD). Among secondary outcomes, we found no significant differences in terms of neonatal mortality (typical RR 2.00, CI 95% 0.62 to 6.45; typical RD 0.04, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.12; 2 studies, 182 infants; I² = 46% for RR and I² = 61% for RD) and in the other specified outcomes, such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia. The quality of the evidence supporting these findings is limited due to the imprecision of the estimates.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe administration of antithrombin seems not to reduce the incidence and severity of intraventricular hemorrhage in very preterm infants. Limited evidence is available on other clinically relevant outcomes. Given the imprecision of the estimate, the results of this systematic review are consistent with either a benefit or a detrimental effect of antithrombin and do not provide a definitive answer to the review question.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We included two trials for a total of 182 newborn infants comparing antithrombin with placebo (sugar or albumin solution)." } ]
query-laysum	7336	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCohort studies have suggested that nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) starting in the immediate postnatal period before the onset of respiratory disease (prophylactic CPAP) may be beneficial in reducing the need for intubation and intermittent positive pressure ventilation (IPPV), and in preventing bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), in preterm or low birth weight infants.\nObjectives\nTo determine if prophylactic nasal CPAP (started within the first 15 minutes) or very early nasal CPAP regardless of respiratory status (started within the first hour of life), reduces the use of mechanical ventilation and the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia without any adverse effects in preterm infants.\nSearch methods\nA comprehensive search was run on 6 November 2020 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via CRS Web) and MEDLINE via Ovid. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in preterm infants (under 37 weeks of gestation). We included trials if they compared prophylactic nasal CPAP (started within the first 15 minutes) or very early nasal CPAP (started within the first hour of life) in infants with minimal signs of respiratory distress with 'supportive care', such as supplemental oxygen therapy, standard nasal cannula, or mechanical ventilation. We excluded studies where prophylactic CPAP was compared with CPAP along with co-interventions.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal, including independent study selection, assessment of trial quality, and extraction of data by two review authors.\nMain results\nWe included eight trials (seven from the previous version of the review and one new study), recruiting 3201 babies, in the meta-analysis. Four trials, involving 765 babies, compared CPAP with supportive care, and three trials (2364 babies) compared CPAP with mechanical ventilation. One trial (72 babies) compared prophylactic CPAP with very early CPAP. Apart from a lack of blinding of the intervention, we judged seven studies to have a low risk of bias. However, one study had a high risk of selection bias.\nProphylactic or very early CPAP compared to supportive care\nThere may be a reduction in failed treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.74; risk difference (RD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.02; 4 studies, 765 infants; very low certainty evidence). CPAP possibly reduces BPD at 36 weeks (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.14; 3 studies, 683 infants, moderate certainty evidence); there may be little or no difference in death (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.93; 4 studies, 765 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Prophylactic CPAP may reduce the composite outcome of death or BPD (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 study, 256 infants; low certainty evidence). There may be no difference in pulmonary air leak (pneumothorax) (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.16; 3 studies, 568 infants; low certainty evidence), or intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) Grade 3 or 4 (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.37; 2 studies, 486 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Neurodevelopmental impairment was not reported in any of the studies.\nProphylactic or very early CPAP compared to mechanical ventilation\nThere was probably a reduction in the incidence of BPD at 36 weeks (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.8 to 0.99; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; 3 studies, 2150 infants; moderate certainty evidence); and death or BPD (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; 3 studies, 2358 infants; moderate certainty evidence). There was also probably a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (failed treatment) (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.54; RD -0.50, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.45; 2 studies, 1042 infants; moderate certainty evidence). There was probably a reduction in the incidence of death (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 3 studies, 2358 infants; moderate certainty evidence); pulmonary air leak (pneumothorax) (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.69; 3 studies, 2357 infants; low certainty evidence); and IVH Grade 3 or 4 (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39; 3 studies, 2301 infants; moderate certainty evidence). One study in this comparison reported that there was probably little or no difference between the groups in the incidence of neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.32; 976 infants; moderate certainty evidence).\nProphylactic CPAP compared with very early CPAP\nThere was one study in this comparison. We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of BPD (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.27; very low certainty evidence). The combined outcome of death and BPD was not reported, and failed treatment was reported but without data. There may have been little to no effect on death (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29 to1.94; 1 study, 72 infants; very low certainty evidence). Intraventricular haemorrhage Grade 3 or 4 and neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported in this study. Pulmonary air leak (pneumothorax) was reported in this study, but there were no events in either group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor preterm and very preterm infants, there is insufficient evidence to evaluate prophylactic CPAP compared to oxygen therapy and other supportive care. When compared to mechanical ventilation, prophylactic nasal CPAP in very preterm infants reduces the incidence of BPD, the combined outcome of death and BPD, and mechanical ventilation. There is probably no difference in neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months of age.\nWhen prophylactic CPAP is compared to early CPAP, we are very uncertain about whether there is any difference between prophylactic and very early CPAP.\nThere is no information about the effect of prophylactic or very early CPAP in late preterm infants.\nThere is one study awaiting classification.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How does CPAP help premature babies?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Premature babies are those babies born before 37 weeks of development (gestation). They may have trouble breathing because their lungs are not fully developed. This is called ‘respiratory distress syndrome’ (RDS). Premature babies with non-severe RDS may be treated with warmth, fluids, calories, and oxygen. Babies with severe RDS are given breathing support with CPAP or a ventilator. Babies breathe by themselves with CPAP, but the pressure of the stream of air that CPAP delivers keeps the baby’s airways open between breaths. Babies on CPAP avoid being put on ventilators, which can cause lung damage, such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD).\nCPAP can be given within the first 15 minutes after birth (preventive CPAP), or up to an hour after birth as therapy if babies show early signs of RDS (very early CPAP)." } ]
query-laysum	7337	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAppendicitis remains a difficult disease to diagnose, and imaging adjuncts are commonly employed. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an imaging test that can be used to diagnose appendicitis. It is not commonly regarded as a first-line imaging test for appendicitis, but the reported diagnostic accuracy in some studies is equivalent to computed tomography (CT) scans. As it does not expose patients to radiation, it is an attractive imaging modality, particularly in women and children.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting appendicitis in all patients.\nSecondary objectives:\nTo investigate the accuracy of MRI in subgroups of pregnant women, children, and adults.\nTo investigate the potential influence of MRI scanning variables such as sequences, slice thickness, or field of view.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until February 2021. We searched the references of included studies and other systematic reviews to identify further studies. We did not exclude studies that were unpublished, published in another language, or retrospective.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that compared the outcome of an MRI scan for suspected appendicitis with a reference standard of histology, intraoperative findings, or clinical follow-up. Three study team members independently filtered search results for eligible studies.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently extracted study data and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2) tool. We used the bivariate model to calculate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity.\nMain results\nWe identified 58 studies with sufficient data for meta-analysis including a total of 7462 participants (1980 with and 5482 without acute appendicitis). Estimates of sensitivity ranged from 0.18 to 1.0; estimates of specificity ranged from 0.4 to 1.0. Summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.97); summary specificity was 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97). Sensitivity and specificity remained high on subgroup analysis for pregnant women (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99); specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.98); 21 studies, 2282 women); children (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97); specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98); 17 studies, 2794 children); and adults (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.97); specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.98); 9 studies, 1088 participants), as well as different scanning techniques. In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, there would be 12 false-positive results and 30 false-negative results. Methodological quality of the included studies was poor, and the risk of bias was high or unclear in 53% to 83% of the QUADAS-2 domains.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMRI appears to be highly accurate in confirming and excluding acute appendicitis in adults, children, and pregnant women regardless of protocol. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low due to incomplete and low standards of follow-up, so summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity may be biased. We could not assess the impact and direction of potential bias given the very low number of high-quality studies. Studies comparing MRI protocols were few, and although we found no influence of MRI protocol variables on the summary estimates of accuracy, our results do not rule out that some MRI protocols are more accurate than others.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"To whom do the results of this review apply?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The results apply to people with suspected appendicitis, including adults, pregnant women, and children. Most studies were conducted in Europe and North America in large university hospitals. Patients had often undergone an ultrasound scan without a clear result." } ]
query-laysum	7338	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFalls and fall-related injuries are common. A third of community-dwelling people aged over 65 years fall each year. Falls can have serious consequences including restricting activity or institutionalisation. This review updates the previous evidence for environmental interventions in fall prevention.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of environmental interventions (such as fall-hazard reduction, assistive technology, home modifications, and education) for preventing falls in older people living in the community.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, other databases, trial registers, and reference lists of systematic reviews to January 2021. We contacted researchers in the field to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of environmental interventions (such as reduction of fall hazards in the home, assistive devices) on falls in community-residing people aged 60 years and over.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was rate of falls.\nMain results\nWe included 22 studies from 10 countries involving 8463 community-residing older people. Participants were on average 78 years old, and 65% were women. For fall outcomes, five studies had high risk of bias and most studies had unclear risk of bias for one or more risk of bias domains. For other outcomes (e.g. fractures), most studies were at high risk of detection bias. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for high risk of bias, imprecision, and/or inconsistency.\nHome fall-hazard reduction (14 studies, 5830 participants)\nThese interventions aim to reduce falls by assessing fall hazards and making environmental safety adaptations (e.g. non-slip strips on steps) or behavioural strategies (e.g. avoiding clutter).\nHome fall-hazard interventions probably reduce the overall rate of falls by 26% (rate ratio (RaR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 0.91; 12 studies, 5293 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); based on a control group risk of 1319 falls per 1000 people a year, this is 343 (95% CI 118 to 514) fewer falls. However, these interventions were more effective in people who are selected for higher risk of falling, with a reduction of 38% (RaR 0.62, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.70; 9 studies, 1513 participants; 702 (95% CI 554 to 812) fewer falls based on a control risk of 1847 falls per 1000 people; high-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a reduction in rate of falls when people were not selected for fall risk (RaR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16; 6 studies, 3780 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nFindings were similar for the number of people experiencing one or more falls. These interventions probably reduce the overall risk by 11% (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; 12 studies, 5253 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); based on a risk of 519 per 1000 people per year, this is 57 (95% CI 15 to 93) fewer fallers. However, for people at higher risk of falling, we found a 26% decrease in risk (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.85; 9 studies, 1473 participants), but no decrease for unselected populations (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 6 studies, 3780 participants) (high-certainty evidence).\nThese interventions probably make little or no important difference to health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (standardised mean difference 0.09, 95% CI −0.10 to 0.27; 5 studies, 1848 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They may make little or no difference to the risk of fall-related fractures (RR 1.00, 95% 0.98 to 1.02; 2 studies, 1668 participants), fall-related hospitalisations (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.06; 3 studies, 325 participants), or in the rate of falls requiring medical attention (RaR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.43; 3 studies, 946 participants) (low-certainty evidence). The evidence for number of fallers requiring medical attention was unclear (2 studies, 216 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies reported no adverse events.\nAssistive technology\nVision improvement interventions may make little or no difference to the rate of falls (RaR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.50; 3 studies, 1489 participants) or people experiencing one or more falls (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50) (low-certainty evidence). We are unsure of the evidence for fall-related fractures (2 studies, 976 participants) and falls requiring medical attention (1 study, 276 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. There may be little or no difference in HRQoL (mean difference 0.40, 95% CI −1.12 to 1.92) or adverse events (falls while switching glasses; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02) (1 study, 597 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nResults for other assistive technology - footwear and foot devices, and self-care and assistive devices (5 studies, 651 participants) - were not pooled due to the diversity of interventions and contexts.\nEducation\nWe are uncertain whether an education intervention to reduce home fall hazards reduces the rate of falls or the number of people experiencing one or more falls (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). These interventions may make little or no difference to the risk of fall-related fractures (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 1 study, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nHome modifications\nWe found no trials of home modifications that measured falls as an outcome for task enablement and functional independence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found high-certainty evidence that home fall-hazard interventions are effective in reducing the rate of falls and the number of fallers when targeted to people at higher risk of falling, such as having had a fall in the past year and recently hospitalised or needing support with daily activities. There was evidence of no effect when interventions were targeted to people not selected for risk of falling. Further research is needed to examine the impact of intervention components, the effect of awareness raising, and participant-interventionist engagement on decision-making and adherence.\nVision improvement interventions may or may not impact the rate of falls. Further research is needed to answer clinical questions such as whether people should be given advice or take additional precautions when changing eye prescriptions, or whether the intervention is more effective when targeting people at higher risk of falls.\nThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether education interventions impact falls.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We wanted to find out:\n• which types of environmental programmes work best to prevent falls.\nWe also wanted to find out for these programmes that prevent falls:\n• the best ways to deliver programmes that reduce environmental fall hazards; and\n• if such programmes can prevent falls that result in serious injury.\nWe examined four types of programmes, including those that:\n• focused on removing fall hazards in and about the home;\n• only provided assistive devices such as up-to-date glasses or special footwear;\n• only provided education about environment-related fall risk; and\n• focused on home modifications to enable independence and performance of daily tasks in the home." } ]
query-laysum	7339	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChildren with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) frequently present with inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity, which are the cardinal symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The effectiveness of methylphenidate, a commonly used ADHD treatment, is therefore of interest in these children.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of methylphenidate for symptoms of ADHD (inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity) and ASD (impairments in social interaction and communication, and repetitive, restricted or stereotypical behaviours) in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years with ASD.\nSearch methods\nIn November 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 11 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effect of methylphenidate versus placebo on the core symptoms of ASD or ADHD-like symptoms, or both, in children aged 6 to 18 years who were diagnosed with ASD or pervasive developmental disorder. The primary outcome was clinical efficacy, defined as an improvement in ADHD-like symptoms (inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity) and in the core symptoms of ASD (impaired social interaction, impaired communication, and stereotypical behaviours), and overall ASD. Secondary outcomes examined were: rate of adverse events; caregiver well-being; need for institutionalisation, special schooling or therapy to achieve learning outcomes; and overall quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We combined outcome measures that used different psychometric scales, where clinically appropriate. We used a coefficient of 0.6 to calculate standard deviations and adjust for the studies' cross-over design. We considered a standardised mean difference (SMD) of 0.52 as the minimum clinically relevant inter-treatment difference. We applied the GRADE rating for strength of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nThe studies: we included four cross-over studies, with a total of 113 children aged 5 to 13 years, most of whom (83%) were boys. We included two studies with five-year-old children since we were unable to obtain the disaggregated data for those aged six years and above, and all other participants were in our target age range. All participants resided in the USA. The duration of treatment in the cross-over phase was one week for each dose of methylphenidate. Studies used a range of outcome scales, rated by parents, teachers or both; clinicians; or programme staff. We report parent-rated outcomes separately.\nRisk of bias: we considered three trials to be at high risk of bias due to selective reporting and all trials to be at unclear risk of bias for blinding of participants and assessors, due to the potential for recognising the side effects of methylphenidate. We judged all trials to be at low or unclear risk of bias for other items.\nPrimary outcomes: the meta-analysis suggested that high-dose methylphenidate (0.43 mg/kg/dose to 0.60 mg/kg/dose) had a significant and clinically relevant benefit on hyperactivity, as rated by teachers (SMD −0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.13 to −0.43; 4 studies, 73 participants; P < 0.001; low-quality evidence) and parents (mean difference (MD) −6.61 points, 95% CI −12.19 to −1.03, rated on the hyperactivity subscale of the Aberrant Behviour Checklist, range 0 to 48; 2 studies, 71 participants; P = 0.02; low-quality evidence). Meta-analysis also showed a significant but not clinically relevant benefit on teacher-rated inattention (MD −2.72 points, 95% CI −5.37 to −0.06, rated on the inattention subscale of the Swanson, Nolan and Pelham, Fourth Version questionnaire, range 0 to 27; 2 studies, 51 participants; P = 0.04; low-quality evidence). There were inadequate data to conduct a meta-analysis on the symptom of impulsivity. There was no evidence that methylphenidate worsens the core symptoms of ASD or benefits social interaction (SMD −0.51, 95% CI −1.07 to 0.05; 3 studies, 63 participants; P = 0.07; very low-quality evidence), stereotypical behaviours (SMD −0.34, 95% CI −0.84 to 0.17; 3 studies, 69 participants; P = 0.19; low-quality evidence), or overall ASD (SMD −0.53, 95% CI −1.26 to 0.19; 2 studies, 36 participants; P = 0.15; low-quality evidence), as rated by teachers. There were inadequate data to conduct a meta-analysis on the symptom of impaired communication.\nSecondary outcomes: no data were available for the secondary outcomes of caregiver well-being; need for institutionalisation, special schooling options or therapy to achieve learning outcomes; or overall quality of life. No trials reported serious adverse events. The only adverse effect that was significantly more likely with treatment was reduced appetite as rated by parents (risk ratio 8.28, 95% CI 2.57 to 26.73; 2 studies, 74 participants; P < 0.001; very low-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis by dose did not identify any significant differences in effect on our primary outcomes between low-, medium- or high-dose ranges.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that short-term use of methylphenidate might improve symptoms of hyperactivity and possibly inattention in children with ASD who are tolerant of the medication, although the low quality of evidence means that we cannot be certain of the true magnitude of any effect. There was no evidence that methylphenidate has a negative impact on the core symptoms of ASD, or that it improves social interaction, stereotypical behaviours, or overall ASD. The evidence for adverse events is of very low quality because trials were short and excluded children intolerant of methylphenidate in the test-dose phase. Future RCTs should consider extending the duration of treatment and follow-up. The minimum clinically important difference also needs to be confirmed in children with ASD using outcome scales validated for this population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The aim of this Cochrane Review was to find out if methylphenidate is helpful for children with ASD. We collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question and found four studies." } ]
query-laysum	7340	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOutwardly directed aggressive behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities is a significant issue that may lead to poor quality of life, social exclusion and inpatient psychiatric admissions. Cognitive and behavioural approaches have been developed to manage aggressive behaviour but the effectiveness of these interventions on reducing aggressive behaviour and other outcomes are unclear. This is the third update of this review and adds nine new studies, resulting in a total of 15 studies in this review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of behavioural and cognitive-behavioural interventions on outwardly directed aggressive behaviour compared to usual care, wait-list controls or no treatment in people with intellectual disability. We also evaluated enhanced interventions compared to non-enhanced interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was March 2022. We revised the search terms to include positive behaviour support (PBS).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised trials of children and adults with intellectual disability of any duration, setting and any eligible comparator.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were change in 1. aggressive behaviour, 2. ability to control anger, and 3. adaptive functioning, and 4. adverse effects. Our secondary outcomes were change in 5. mental state, 6. medication, 7. care needs and 8. quality of life, and 9. frequency of service utilisation and 10. user satisfaction data. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nWe expressed treatment effects as mean differences (MD) or odds ratios (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we pooled data using a fixed-effect model.\nMain results\nThis updated version comprises nine new studies giving 15 included studies and 921 participants. The update also adds new interventions including parent training (two studies), mindfulness-based positive behaviour support (MBPBS) (two studies), reciprocal imitation training (RIT; one study) and dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT; one study). It also adds two new studies on PBS.\nMost studies were based in the community (14 studies), and one was in an inpatient forensic service. Eleven studies involved adults only. The remaining studies involved children (one study), children and adolescents (one study), adolescents (one study), and adolescents and adults (one study). One study included boys with fragile X syndrome.\nSix studies were conducted in the UK, seven in the USA, one in Canada and one in Germany. Only five studies described sources of funding.\nFour studies compared anger management based on cognitive behaviour therapy to a wait-list or no treatment control group (n = 263); two studies compared PBS with treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 308); two studies compared carer training on mindfulness and PBS with PBS only (n = 128); two studies involving parent training on behavioural approaches compared to wait-list control or TAU (n = 99); one study of mindfulness to a wait-list control (n = 34); one study of adapted dialectal behavioural therapy compared to wait-list control (n = 21); one study of RIT compared to an active control (n = 20) and one study of modified relaxation compared to an active control group (n = 12).\nThere was moderate-certainty evidence that anger management may improve severity of aggressive behaviour post-treatment (MD −3.50, 95% CI −6.21 to −0.79; P = 0.01; 1 study, 158 participants); very low-certainty evidence that it might improve self-reported ability to control anger (MD −8.38, 95% CI −14.05 to −2.71; P = 0.004, I2 = 2%; 3 studies, 212 participants), adaptive functioning (MD −21.73, 95% CI −36.44 to −7.02; P = 0.004; 1 study, 28 participants) and psychiatric symptoms (MD −0.48, 95% CI −0.79 to −0.17; P = 0.002; 1 study, 28 participants) post-treatment; and very low-certainty evidence that it does not improve quality of life post-treatment (MD −5.60, 95% CI −18.11 to 6.91; P = 0.38; 1 study, 129 participants) or reduce service utilisation and costs at 10 months (MD 102.99 British pounds, 95% CI −117.16 to 323.14; P = 0.36; 1 study, 133 participants).\nThere was moderate-certainty evidence that PBS may reduce aggressive behaviour post-treatment (MD −7.78, 95% CI −15.23 to −0.32; P = 0.04, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 275 participants) and low-certainty evidence that it probably does not reduce aggressive behaviour at 12 months (MD −5.20, 95% CI −13.27 to 2.87; P = 0.21; 1 study, 225 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that PBS does not improve mental state post-treatment (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.49; P = 1.21; 1 study, 214 participants) and very low-certainty evidence that it might not reduce service utilisation at 12 months (MD −448.00 British pounds, 95% CI −1660.83 to 764.83; P = 0.47; 1 study, 225 participants).\nThere was very low-certainty evidence that mindfulness may reduce incidents of physical aggression (MD −2.80, 95% CI −4.37 to −1.23; P < 0.001; 1 study; 34 participants) and low-certainty evidence that MBPBS may reduce incidents of aggression post-treatment (MD −10.27, 95% CI −14.86 to −5.67; P < 0.001, I2 = 87%; 2 studies, 128 participants).\nReasons for downgrading the certainty of evidence were risk of bias (particularly selection and performance bias); imprecision (results from single, often small studies, wide CIs, and CIs crossing the null effect); and inconsistency (statistical heterogeneity).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-certainty evidence that cognitive-behavioural approaches such as anger management and PBS may reduce outwardly directed aggressive behaviour in the short term but there is less certainty about the evidence in the medium and long term, particularly in relation to other outcomes such as quality of life. There is some evidence to suggest that combining more than one intervention may have cumulative benefits.\nMost studies were small and there is a need for larger, robust randomised controlled trials, particularly for interventions where the certainty of evidence is very low. More trials are needed that focus on children and whether psychological interventions lead to reductions in the use of psychotropic medications.\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": "To identify relevant studies, we searched medical databases and registries of clinical trials up to March 2022 and references of retrieved papers. Two review authors independently screened the titles of papers for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed study limitations. When necessary, we contacted trial authors to request additional information." } ]
query-laysum	7341	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of mortality worldwide. Coronary artery disease (CAD) contributes to half of mortalities caused by CVD. The mainstay of management of CAD is medical therapy and revascularisation. Revascularisation can be achieved via coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Peripheral arteries, such as the femoral or radial artery, provide the access to the coronary arteries to perform diagnostic or therapeutic (or both) procedures.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of the transradial compared to the transfemoral approach in people with CAD undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) or PCI (or both).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials on 10 October 2017: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2017. There were no language restrictions. Reference lists were also checked and we contacted authors of included studies for further information.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that compared transradial and transfemoral approaches in adults (18 years of age or older) undergoing diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) for CAD.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for missing information. We used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were checked by another author.\nMain results\nWe identified 31 studies (44 reports) including 27,071 participants and two ongoing studies. The risk of bias in the studies was low or unclear for several domains. Compared to the transfemoral approach, the transradial approach reduced short-term net adverse clinical events (NACE) (i.e. assessed during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.94; 17,133 participants; 4 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiac death (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 11,170 participants; 11 studies; moderate quality evidence). However, short-term myocardial infarction was similar between both groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 19,430 participants; 11 studies; high quality evidence). The transradial approach had a lower procedural success rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98; 25,920 participants; 28 studies; moderate quality evidence), but was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; 18,955 participants; 10 studies; high quality evidence), bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; 23,043 participants; 20 studies; low quality evidence), and access site complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 16,112 participants; 24 studies; low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTransradial approach for diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) in CAD may reduce short-term NACE, cardiac death, all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications. There is insufficient evidence regarding the long-term clinical outcomes (i.e. beyond 30 days of follow-up).\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 for short-term myocardial infarction and all-cause death as high. We rated short-term NACE, cardiac death, and success of the procedure as moderate quality evidence. Evidence for bleeding and access site complications was low quality." } ]
query-laysum	7342	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAggressive, agitated or violent behaviour due to psychosis constitutes an emergency psychiatric treatment where fast-acting interventions are required. Risperidone is a widely accessible antipsychotic that can be used to manage psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.\nObjectives\nTo examine whether oral risperidone alone is an effective treatment for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (up to April 2017); this register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rapid use of risperidone and other drugs, combinations of drugs or placebo for people exhibiting aggression or agitation (or both) thought to be due to psychosis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently inspected all citations from searches, identified relevant abstracts, and independently extracted data from all included studies. For binary data we calculated risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated mean difference (MD), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for the included studies and used the GRADE approach to produce a ’Summary of findings’ tables.\nMain results\nThe review now contains data from nine trials (total n = 582) reporting on five comparisons. Due to risk of bias, small size of trials, indirectness of outcome measures and a paucity of investigated and reported 'pragmatic' outcomes, evidence was graded as very-low quality. None of the included studies provided useable data on our primary outcome 'tranquillisation or asleep' by 30 minutes, repeated need for tranquillisation or any economic outcomes. Data were available for our other main outcomes of agitation or aggression, needing restraint, and incidence of adverse effects.\nRisperidone versus haloperidol (up to 24 hours follow-up)\nFor the outcome, specific behaviour - agitation, no clear difference was found between risperidone and haloperidol in terms of efficacy, measured as at least 50% reduction in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Psychotic Agitation Sub-score (PANSS-PAS) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) and no effect was observed for need to use restraints (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.21; participants = 28; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). Incidence of adverse effects was similar between treatment groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.66; participants = 124; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence).\nRisperidone versus olanzapine\nOne small trial (n = 29) reported useable data for the comparison risperidone versus olanzapine. No effect was observed for agitation measured as PANSS-PAS endpoint score at two hours (MD 2.50, 95% CI -2.46 to 7.46; very low-quality evidence); need to use restraints at four days (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.39 to 5.28; very-low quality evidence); specific movement disorders measured as Behavioural Activity Rating Scale (BARS) endpoint score at four days (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.83; very low-quality evidence).\nRisperidone versus quetiapine\nOne trial reported (n = 40) useable data for the comparison risperidone versus quetiapine. Aggression was measured using the Modified Overt Aggression Scale (MOAS) endpoint score at two weeks. A clear difference, favouring quetiapine was observed (MD 1.80, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.40; very-low quality evidence). No evidence of a difference between treatment groups could be observed for incidence of akathisia after 24 hours (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 6.06; very low-quality evidence). Two participants allocated to risperidone and one allocated to quetiapine experienced myocardial ischaemia during the trial.\nRisperidone versus risperidone + oxcarbazepine\nOne trial (n = 68) measured agitation using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Excited Component.(PANSS-EC) endpoint score and found a clear difference, favouring the combination treatment at one week (MD 2.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.98; very low-quality evidence), but no effect was observed for global state using Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I) endpoint score at one week (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.21; very-low quality evidence). Incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms after 24 hours was similar between treatment groups (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 5.14; very-low quality evidence).\nRisperidone versus risperidone + valproic acid\nTwo trials compared risperidone with a combination of risperidone plus valproic acid. No clear differences between the treatment groups were observed for aggression (MOAS endpoint score at three days: MD 1.07, 95% CI -0.20 to 2.34; participants = 54; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or incidence of akathisia after 24 hours: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.03; participants = 122; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, results for the main outcomes show no real effect for risperidone. The only data available for use in this review are from nine under-sampled trials and the evidence available is of very low quality. This casts uncertainty on the role of risperidone in rapid tranquillisation for people with psychosis-induced aggression. High-quality pragmatic RCTs are feasible and are needed before clear recommendations can be drawn on the use of risperidone for psychosis-induced aggression or agitation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Searches\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The Information Specialist of Cochrane Schizophrenia ran searches of their specialised register for randomised trials that looked at the effects of giving risperidone alone compared with giving either placebo (dummy treatment) or other treatments to people who are aggressive or agitated as a results of having psychosis. The latest date of searching was April 2017." } ]
query-laysum	7343	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChildren who undergo surgical procedures in ambulatory and inpatient settings are at risk of experiencing acute pain. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can reduce moderate to severe pain without many of the side effects associated with opioids. However, NSAIDs may cause bleeding, renal and gastrointestinal toxicity, and potentially delay wound and bone healing. Intravenous administration of ketorolac for postoperative pain in children has not been approved in many countries, but is routinely administered in clinical practise.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of ketorolac for postoperative pain in children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases, without language restrictions, to November 2017: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 10); MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of reviews, and retrieved articles for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that compared the analgesic efficacy of ketorolac (in any dose, administered via any route) with placebo or another active treatment, in treating postoperative pain in participants zero to 18 years of age following any type of surgery.\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. We analyzed trials in two groups; ketorolac versus placebo, and ketorolac versus opioid. However, we performed limited 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 13 studies, involving 920 randomised participants. There was considerable heterogeneity among study designs, including the comparator arms (placebo, opioid, another NSAID, or a different regimen of ketorolac), dosing regimens (routes and timing of administration, single versus multiple dose), outcome assessment methods, and types of surgery. Mean study population ages ranged from 356 days to 13.9 years. The majority of studies chose a dose of either 0.5 mg/kg (as a single or multiple dose regimen) or 1 mg/kg (single dose with 0.5 mg/kg for any subsequent doses). One study administered interventions intraoperatively; the remainder administered interventions postoperatively, often after the participant reported moderate to severe pain.\nThere were insufficient data to perform meta-analysis for either of our primary outcomes: participants with at least 50% pain relief; or mean postoperative pain intensity. Four studies individually reported statistically significant reductions in pain intensity when comparing ketorolac with placebo, but the studies were small and had various risks of bias, primarily due to incomplete outcome data and small sample sizes.\nWe found limited data available for the secondary outcomes of participants requiring rescue medication and opioid consumption. For the former, we saw no clear difference between ketorolac and placebo; 74 of 135 (55%) participants receiving ketorolac required rescue analgesia in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) versus 81 of 127 (64%) receiving placebo (relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.00, P = 0.05; 4 studies, 262 participants). For opioid consumption in the PACU, we saw no clear difference between ketorolac and placebo (P = 0.61). For the time period zero to four hours after administration of the interventions, participants receiving ketorolac received 1.58 mg less intravenous morphine equivalents than those receiving placebo (95% CI -2.58 mg to -0.57 mg, P = 0.002; 2 studies, 129 participants). However, we are uncertain whether ketorolac has an important effect on opioid consumption, as the data were sparse and the results were inconsistent. Only one study reported data for opioid consumption when comparing ketorolac with an opioid. There were no clear differences between the ketorolac and opioid group at any time point. There were no data assessing this outcome for the comparison of ketorolac with another NSAID.\nThere were insufficient data to allow us to analyze overall adverse event or serious adverse event rates. Although the majority of serious adverse events reported in those receiving ketorolac involved bleeding, the number of events was too low to conclude that bleeding risk was increased in those receiving ketorolac perioperatively. There was not a statistically significant increase in event rates for any specific adverse event, either in pooled analysis or in single studies, when comparing ketorolac and placebo. When comparing ketorolac with opioids or other NSAIDs, there were too few data to make any conclusions regarding event rates. Lastly, withdrawals due to adverse events were vary rare in all groups, reflecting the acute nature of such studies.\nWe assessed the quality of evidence for all outcomes for each comparison (placebo or active) as very low, due to issues with risk of bias in individual studies, imprecision, heterogeneity between studies, and low overall numbers of participants and events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the lack of data for our primary outcomes, and the very low-quality evidence for secondary outcomes, the efficacy and safety of ketorolac in treating postoperative pain in children were both uncertain. The evidence was insufficient to support or reject its use.\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 November 2017, we searched for clinical trials where ketorolac was used to treat pain after surgery in children. We found 13 studies, enrolling 920 children, that met our requirements for the review. The studies were quite different in their design, the dose of ketorolac, the timing (during or after surgery) and number of doses given, the type of surgery, and to what ketorolac was compared (either a placebo (a dummy treatment, such as a bag of fluid) or another drug)." } ]
query-laysum	7344	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIntermittent claudication (IC) is a symptom of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Pentoxifylline, one of many drugs used to treat IC, acts by decreasing blood viscosity, improving erythrocyte flexibility, and promoting microcirculatory flow and tissue oxygen concentration. Many studies have evaluated the efficacy of pentoxifylline in treating people with PAD, but results of these studies are variable. This is the second update of a review first published in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy of pentoxifylline in improving the walking capacity (i.e. pain-free walking distance and total (absolute, maximum) walking distance) of people with stable intermittent claudication, Fontaine stage II.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 28 January 2020. There were no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pentoxifylline versus placebo or any other pharmacological intervention in people with IC Fontaine stage II.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed the included studies, matched data and resolved disagreements by discussion. Review authors assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and collected results related to the outcomes of interest, pain-free walking distance (PFWD), total walking distance (TWD), ankle-brachial pressure index (ABI), quality of life (QoL) and side effects. Comparison of studies was based on duration and dose of pentoxifylline. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified no new eligible studies for this update. This review includes 24 studies with 3377 participants. Seventeen studies compared pentoxifylline versus placebo. The seven remaining studies compared pentoxifylline with flunarizine (one study), aspirin (one study), Gingko biloba extract (one study), nylidrin hydrochloride (one study), prostaglandin E1 (two studies), and buflomedil and nifedipine (one study). Risk of bias for the individual studies was generally unclear because there was a lack of methodological reporting for many of the included studies, especially regarding randomisation and allocation methods. Most included studies did not provide adequate information to allow selective reporting to be judged and did not report blinding of assessors. Heterogeneity between included studies was considerable with regards to multiple variables, including duration of treatment, dose of pentoxifylline, baseline walking distance and participant characteristics; therefore, pooled analysis for comparisons which included more than one study, was not possible.\nPentoxifylline compared to placebo\nOf 17 studies comparing pentoxifylline with placebo, 11 reported PFWD and 14 reported TWD; the difference in percentage improvement in PFWD for pentoxifylline over placebo ranged from –33.8% to 73.9% and in TWD ranged from 1.2% to 155.9%. It was not possible to pool the data of the studies because data were insufficient and findings from individual trials were unclear. Most included studies suggested a possible improvement in PFWD and TWD for pentoxifylline over placebo (both low-certainty evidence).\nThe five studies which evaluated pre-exercise ABI comparing pentoxifylline and placebo found no evidence of a difference (moderate-certainty evidence). Two of the three studies that evaluated QoL between people who received pentoxifylline and placebo were larger studies that used validated QoL tools and generally found no evidence of a difference between groups. One small, short-term study, which did not specify which QoL tool was used, reported improved QoL in the pentoxifylline group (moderate-certainty evidence). Pentoxifylline generally was well tolerated; the most commonly reported side effects consisted of gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea (low-certainty evidence).\nCertainty of the evidence from this review was low or moderate, with downgrading due to risk of bias concerns, inconsistencies between studies and the inability to evaluate imprecision because meta-analysis could not be undertaken.\nThe seven remaining studies compared pentoxifylline with either flunarizine, aspirin, Gingko biloba extract, nylidrin hydrochloride, prostaglandin E1, or buflomedil and nifedipine; data were too limited to allow any meaningful conclusions to be made.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a lack of high-certainty evidence for the effects of pentoxifylline compared to placebo, or other treatments, for IC. There is low-certainty evidence that pentoxifylline may improve PFWD and TWD compared to placebo, but no evidence of a benefit to ABI or QoL (moderate-certainty evidence). Pentoxifylline was reported to be generally well tolerated (low-certainty evidence). Given the large degree of heterogeneity between the studies, the role of pentoxifylline for people with IC Fontaine class II remains uncertain.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies that looked at the use of pentoxifylline to treat intermittent claudication. We wanted to find out if pentoxifylline:\n– could help people to walk further, by measuring how far they could walk before feeling pain in their legs;\n– affected the relationship of blood pressure at the ankle compared with that in the arm (ankle-brachial pressure index (ABI) – a measure of peripheral arterial disease);\n– affected people's quality of life (well-being); and\n– caused any side effects.\nWe looked for randomised controlled studies, in which the treatments people received were decided at random. This type of study usually gives the most reliable evidence about the effects of a treatment." } ]
query-laysum	7345	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDespite the availability of effective drug therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (LDL-C), cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity. Therefore, additional LDL-C reduction may be warranted, especially for people who are unresponsive to, or unable to take, existing LDL-C-reducing therapies. By inhibiting the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, monoclonal antibodies (PCSK9 inhibitors) reduce LDL-C and CVD risk.\nObjectives\nPrimary\nTo quantify the effects of PCSK9 inhibitors on CVD, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke, compared to placebo or active treatment(s) for primary and secondary prevention.\nSecondary\nTo quantify the safety of PCSK9 inhibitors, with specific focus on the incidence of influenza, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and cancer, compared to placebo or active treatment(s) for primary and secondary prevention.\nSearch methods\nWe identified studies by systematically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science in December 2019. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2020 and screened the reference lists of included studies. This is an update of the review first published in 2017.\nSelection criteria\nAll parallel-group and factorial randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least 24 weeks and adult participants with or without a history of CVD were eligible if they compared PCSK9 inhibitors alirocumab or evolocumab to placebo or active treatments such as statins, ezetimibe, or a combination of these.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed and extracted data. Where data were available, we calculated pooled effect estimates. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence and in 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included 24 studies with data on 60,997 participants. Eighteen trials randomised participants to alirocumab and six to evolocumab. All participants received background lipid-lowering treatment or lifestyle counselling. Six alirocumab studies used an active treatment comparison group (the remaining used placebo), compared to three evolocumab active comparison trials. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 36 months for the comparisons with placebo and from 6 to 12 months for comparisons with active treatment. Most of the available studies preferentially enrolled people with either established CVD or at a high risk already, and evidence in low- to medium-risk settings is minimal.\nAlirocumab compared with placebo decreased the risk of CVD events, with an absolute risk difference (RD) of –2% (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.94; 10 studies, 23,868 participants; high-certainty evidence), decreased the risk of mortality (RD –1%; OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; 12 studies, 24,797 participants; high-certainty evidence), and MI (RD –2%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 9 studies, 23,352 participants; high-certainty evidence) and for any stroke (RD 0%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91; 8 studies, 22,835 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nAlirocumab compared with ezetimibe and statins: for CVD, the RD was 1% (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.87; 3 studies, 1379 participants; low-certainty evidence); for mortality, RD was –1% (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.40; 5 studies, 1333 participants; low-certainty evidence); for MI, RD was 1% (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.28, 5 studies, 1734 participants; low-certainty evidence); and for any stroke, RD was less than 1% (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.13 to 5.61; 5 studies, 1734 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nEvolocumab compared with placebo: for CVD, the RD was –2% (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); for mortality, RD was less than 1% (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.19; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); for MI, RD was –1% (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.82; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); and for any stroke RD was less than –1% (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.94; 2 studies, 28,531 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nEvolocumab compared with ezetimibe and statins: for any CVD event RD was less than –1% (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.04; 1 study, 218 participants; very low-certainty evidence); for all-cause mortality, the RD was less than 1% (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.30; 3 studies, 5223 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and for MI, RD was less than 1% (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.85; 3 studies, 5003 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data on any stroke.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence for the clinical endpoint effects of evolocumab and alirocumab versus placebo were graded as high. There is a strong evidence base for the benefits of PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies to people who might not be eligible for other lipid-lowering drugs, or to people who cannot meet their lipid goals on more traditional therapies, which was the main patient population of the available trials.\nThe evidence base of PCSK9 inhibitors compared with ezetimibe and statins is much weaker (low very- to low-certainty evidence) and it is unclear whether evolocumab or alirocumab might be effectively used as replacement therapies.\nFinally, there is very limited evidence on any potential safety issues of both evolocumab and alirocumab. While the current evidence synthesis does not reveal any adverse signals, neither does it provide evidence against such signals. This suggests careful consideration of alternative lipid lowering treatments before prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Despite the availability of effective medicines (such as statins (which works by blocking a substance your body needs to make cholesterol) or ezetimibe (which stops your body taking in cholesterol from food), or both) that reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (LDL-C) (sometimes called 'bad' cholesterol), CVD remains an important cause of death and illness. Additional LDL-C reduction may be needed, especially for people who are unresponsive to, or are unable to use, existing LDL-C-reducing therapies. Medicines called PCSK9 inhibitors are another way of lowering LDL-C and CVD risk." } ]
query-laysum	7346	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSystemic corticosteroids are used to treat people with COVID-19 because they counter hyper-inflammation. Existing evidence syntheses suggest a slight benefit on mortality. Nonetheless, size of effect, optimal therapy regimen, and selection of patients who are likely to benefit most are factors that remain to be evaluated.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether and at which doses systemic corticosteroids are effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19, to explore equity-related aspects in subgroup analyses, and to keep up to date with the evolving evidence base using a living systematic review approach.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv), Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Emerging Citation Index), and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies to 6 January 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated systemic corticosteroids for people with COVID-19.\nWe included any type or dose of systemic corticosteroids and the following comparisons: systemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care, different types, doses and timings (early versus late) of corticosteroids.\nWe excluded corticosteroids in combination with other active substances versus standard care, topical or inhaled corticosteroids, and corticosteroids for long-COVID treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess the risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality up to 30 and 120 days, discharged alive (clinical improvement), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (clinical worsening), serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections.\nMain results\nWe included 16 RCTs in 9549 participants, of whom 8271 (87%) originated from high-income countries. A total of 4532 participants were randomised to corticosteroid arms and the majority received dexamethasone (n = 3766). These studies included participants mostly older than 50 years and male. We also identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design.\nHospitalised individuals with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19\nSystemic corticosteroids plus standard care versus standard care plus/minus placebo\nWe included 11 RCTs (8019 participants), one of which did not report any of our pre-specified outcomes and thus our analyses included outcome data from 10 studies.\nSystemic corticosteroids plus standard care compared to standard care probably reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) slightly (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.97; 7898 participants; estimated absolute effect: 274 deaths per 1000 people not receiving systemic corticosteroids compared to 246 deaths per 1000 people receiving the intervention (95% CI 230 to 265 per 1000 people); moderate-certainty evidence).\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.34; 485 participants). The chance of clinical improvement (discharged alive at day 28) may slightly increase (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; 6786 participants; low-certainty evidence) while the risk of clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death) may slightly decrease (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; 5586 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nFor serious adverse events (two RCTs, 678 participants), adverse events (three RCTs, 447 participants), hospital-acquired infections (four RCTs, 598 participants), and invasive fungal infections (one study, 64 participants), we did not perform any analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence (high risk of bias, heterogeneous definitions, and underreporting).\nDifferent types, dosages or timing of systemic corticosteroids\nWe identified one RCT (86 participants) comparing methylprednisolone to dexamethasone, thus the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of methylprednisolone on all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.07; 86 participants). None of the other outcomes of interest were reported in this study.\nWe included four RCTs (1383 participants) comparing high-dose dexamethasone (12 mg or higher) to low-dose dexamethasone (6 mg to 8 mg).\nHigh-dose dexamethasone compared to low-dose dexamethasone may reduce all-cause mortality (up to 30 days) (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04; 1269 participants; low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of high-dose dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (up to 120 days) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 1383 participants) and it may have little or no impact on clinical improvement (discharged alive at 28 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 200 participants; low-certainty evidence). Studies did not report data on clinical worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death).\nFor serious adverse events, adverse events, hospital-acquired infections, and invasive fungal infections, we did not perform analyses beyond the presentation of descriptive statistics due to very low-certainty evidence.\nWe could not identify studies for comparisons of different timing and systemic corticosteroids versus other active substances.\nEquity-related subgroup analyses\nWe conducted the following subgroup analyses to explore equity-related factors: sex, age (< 70 years; ≥ 70 years), ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). Except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For all-cause mortality up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seemed to benefit from systemic corticosteroids in comparison to those aged 70 years and older. The few participants from a Black, Asian, or other minority ethnic group showed a larger estimated effect than the many White participants.\nOutpatients with asymptomatic or mild disease\nThere are no studies published in populations with asymptomatic infection or mild disease.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSystemic corticosteroids probably slightly reduce all-cause mortality up to 30 days in people hospitalised because of symptomatic COVID-19, while the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on all-cause mortality up to 120 days. For younger people (under 70 years of age) there was a potential advantage, as well as for Black, Asian, or people of a minority ethnic group; further subgroup analyses showed no relevant effects. Evidence related to the most effective type, dose, or timing of systemic corticosteroids remains immature. Currently, there is no evidence on asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised participants). Due to the low to very low certainty of the current evidence, we cannot assess safety adequately to rule out harmful effects of the treatment, therefore there is an urgent need for good-quality safety data. Findings of equity-related subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution because of their explorative nature, low precision, and missing data.\nWe identified 42 ongoing and 23 completed studies lacking published results or relevant information on the study design, suggesting there may be possible changes of the effect estimates and certainty of the evidence in the future.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Equity-related subgroup analyses\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We examined the following equity-related aspects: ethnicity (Black, Asian or other versus White versus unknown) and place of residence (high-income versus low- and middle-income countries). For most of the subgroups, except for age and ethnicity, no evidence for differences could be identified. For death from any cause up to 30 days, participants younger than 70 years seem to benefit from corticosteroids in contrast to participants who were aged 70 years and older. Furthermore, the few participants from a Black, Asian, or minority ethnic group had a larger estimated effect than the many White participants, but these subgroup results need cautious interpretation." } ]
query-laysum	7347	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute pancreatitis is a common and potentially lethal disease with increasing incidence. Severe cases are characterised by high mortality, and despite improvements in intensive care management, no specific treatment relevantly improves clinical outcomes of the disease. Meta-analyses suggest that enteral nutrition is more effective than conventional treatment consisting of discontinuation of oral intake with use of total parenteral nutrition. However, no systematic review has compared different enteral nutrition formulations for the treatment of patients with acute pancreatitis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different enteral nutrition formulations in patients with acute pancreatitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Specialised Register of Clinical Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE (from inception to 20 August 2013), EMBASE (from inception to 2013, week 33) and Science Citation Index–Expanded (from 1990 to August 2013); we conducted full-text searches and applied no restrictions by language or publication status.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised clinical trials assessing enteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis. We allowed concomitant interventions if they were received equally by all treatment groups within a trial.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. We performed the analysis using Review Manager 5 (Review Manager 2013) and both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We expressed results as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data, and as mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Analysis was based on an intention-to-treat principle.\nMain results\nWe included 15 trials (1376 participants) in this review. We downgraded the quality of evidence for many of our outcomes on the basis of high risk of bias. Low-quality evidence suggests that immunonutrition decreases all-cause mortality (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.80). The effect of immunonutrition on other outcomes from a subset of the included trials was uncertain. Subgrouping trials by type of enteral nutrition did not explain any variation in effect. We found mainly very low-quality evidence for the effects of probiotics on the main outcomes. One eligible trial in this comparison reported a higher rate of serious adverse events leading to increased organ failure and mortality due to low numbers of events and low risk of bias. When we excluded this study as a post hoc sensitivity analysis, risks of mortality (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.84), organ failure (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92) and local septic complications (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.72) were lower with probiotics. In one trial assessing immunonutrition with probiotics and fibres, no deaths occurred, but hospital stay was shorter with immunonutrition (MD -5.20 days, 95% CI -8.73 to -1.67). No deaths were reported following semi-elemental enteral nutrition (EN), and the effect on length of hospital stay was small (MD 0.30 days, 95% CI -0.82 to 1.42). Fibre-enriched formulations reduced the number of other local complications (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87) and length of hospital stay (MD -9.28 days, 95% CI -13.21 to -5.35) but did not significantly affect all-cause mortality (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.84) and other outcomes. Very low-quality evidence from the subgroup of trials comparing EN versus no intervention showed a decrease in all-cause mortality with EN (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found evidence of low or very low quality for the effects of immunonutrition on efficacy and safety outcomes. The role of supplementation of enteral nutrition with potential immunomodulatory agents remains in question, and further research is required in this area. Studies assessing probiotics yielded inconsistent and almost contrary results, especially regarding safety and adverse events, and their findings do not support the routine use of EN enriched with probiotics in routine clinical practice. However, further research should be carried out to try to determine the potential efficacy or harms of probiotics. Lack of trials reporting on other types of EN assessed and lack of firm evidence regarding their effects suggest that additional randomised clinical trials are needed. The quality of evidence for the effects of any kind of EN on mortality was low, and further studies are likely to have an impact on the finding of improved survival with EN versus no nutritional support. Evidence remains insufficient to support the use of a specific EN formulation.\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": "Acute pancreatitis is an inflammatory disease of the pancreas - a gland situated in the upper abdominal region that is involved in the process of digestion. The main causes of AP are gallstone disease and excessive alcohol intake. Various factors may activate pancreatic digestive enzymes inside the gland itself, causing tissue damage and extensive inflammation, possibly leading to further damage and resulting in failure of the blood circulatory system, kidneys and/or lungs, and eventually death.\nDespite improvements, mortality associated with severe AP is not decreasing, and no specific treatment is available. EN has proved to be more effective than total parenteral nutrition (stopping oral intake with intravenous administration of nutrients) in reducing organ failure, infectious complications and mortality. EN is usually intended to avoid the stomach and is, therefore, given by a feeding tube inserted through the nose, throat and stomach into the middle part of the small intestine. Many types of EN formulations are available; however, no systematic review of evidence has assessed potential benefits or harms of certain formulations over others." } ]
query-laysum	7348	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBiologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics.\nObjectives\nTo compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.\nMethods\nOn 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer).\nMain results\nThis update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.\nWe judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials.\nBiologic monotherapy versus placebo\nCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups.\nBiologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)\nCompared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.\nTofacitinib monotherapy versus placebo\nThere were no published data.\nTofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)\nIn one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBiologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.\nNo studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.\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 studied the effects of biologics on people with rheumtoid arthritis (RA), whose previous treatment with biologic therapy was unsuccessful, either due to lack of benefits or occurrence of side effects, or both. There were a total of 12 studies (up to June 2015) with data available for four of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics (certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) and three of the non-TNF biologics (abatacept, rituximab, and tocilizumab); only one study provided data for tofacitinib." } ]
query-laysum	7349	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAnxiety and depression affect many people. Treatments do not have complete success and often require people to take drugs for long periods of time. Many people look for other treatments that may help. One of those is Reiki, a 2500 year old treatment described as a vibrational or subtle energy therapy, and is most commonly facilitated by light touch on or above the body. There have been reports of Reiki alleviating anxiety and depression, but no specific systematic review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of Reiki for treating anxiety and depression in people aged 16 and over.\nSearch methods\nSearch of the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL - all years), the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialised Register (CCDANCTR - all years), EMBASE, (1974 to November 2014), MEDLINE (1950 to November 2014), PsycINFO (1967 to November 2014) and AMED (1985 to November 2014). Additional searches were carried out on the World Health Organization Trials Portal (ICTRP) together with ClinicalTrials.gov to identify any ongoing or unpublished studies. All searches were up to date as of 4 November 2014.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials in adults with anxiety or depression or both, with at least one arm treated with Reiki delivered by a trained Reiki practitioner.\nData collection and analysis\nThe two authors independently decided on inclusion/exclusion of studies and extracted data. A prior analysis plan had been specified but was not needed as the data were too sparse.\nMain results\nWe found three studies for inclusion in the review. One recruited males with a biopsy-proven diagnosis of non-metastatic prostate cancer who were not receiving chemotherapy and had elected to receive external-beam radiation therapy; the second study recruited community-living participants who were aged 55 years and older; the third study recruited university students.\nThese studies included subgroups with anxiety and depression as defined by symptom scores and provided data separately for those subgroups. As this included only 25 people with anxiety and 17 with depression and 20 more with either anxiety or depression, but which was not specified, the results could only be reported narratively. They show no evidence that Reiki is either beneficial or harmful in this population. The risk of bias for the included studies was generally rated as unclear or high for most domains, which reduces the certainty of the evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to say whether or not Reiki is useful for people over 16 years of age with anxiety or depression or both.\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": "Very few people with anxiety or depression or both have been included in randomised studies. This means there is insufficient evidence to make any comment about the usefulness of Reiki for the treatment of anxiety and depression." } ]
query-laysum	7350	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChildren with chronic illnesses are at increased risk for reductions in bone strength and subsequent fractures (osteoporosis), either due to the impact of the underlying condition on skeletal development or due to the osteotoxic effect of medications (e.g., glucocorticoids) used to treat the chronic illness. Bisphosphonates are being administered with increasing frequency to children with secondary osteoporosis; however, the efficacy and harm of these agents remains unclear.\nObjectives\nTo examine the efficacy and harm of bisphosphonate therapy in the treatment and prevention of secondary osteoporosis in children and adolescents.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ISI Web of Science (inception-December 2006). Further literature was identified through expert contact, key author searches, scanning reference lists of included studies, and contacting bisphosphonate manufacturers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized, quasi-randomized, controlled clinical trials, cohort, and case controls of bisphosphonate(s) in children 0-18 years of age with at least one low-trauma fracture event or reductions in bone mineral density in the context of secondary osteoporosis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality. Case series were used for supplemental harms-related data.\nMain results\nSix RCTs, two CCTs, and one prospective cohort (n=281 children) were included and classified into osteoporosis due to: 1) neuromuscular conditions (one RCT) and 2) chronic illness (five RCTs, two CCTs, one cohort). Bisphosphonates examined were oral alendronate, clodronate, and intravenous (IV) pamidronate. Study quality varied. Harms data from 23 case series (n=241 children) were used.\nHeterogeneity precluded statistically combining the results. Percent change or Z-score change in lumbar spine areal BMD from baseline were consistently reported. Two studies carried out between-group analyses; one showed no significant difference (using oral alendronate in anorexia nervosa) while the other demonstrated a treatment effect on lumbar spine with IV pamidronate in burn patients. Frequently reported harms included the acute phase reaction, followed by gastrointestinal complaints, and bone/muscle pain.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results justify further evaluation of bisphosphonates among children with secondary osteoporosis. However, the evidence does not support bisphosphonates as standard therapy. Short-term (3 years or less) bisphosphonate use appears to be well-tolerated. An accepted criterion for osteoporosis in children, a standardized approach to BMD reporting, and examining functional bone health outcomes (e.g., fracture rates) will allow for appropriate comparisons across studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is osteoporosis and what are bisphosphonates?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We often do not have precise information about side effects and complications. This is particularly true for rare but serious side effects. Possible side effects may include the acute phase reaction (fever, chills, general malaise), low levels of calcium in the body, nausea, abdominal bloating and other digestion problems, damage to the esophagus, bone or muscle pain, dizziness, rash, and memory loss.What is osteoporosis and what are bisphosphonates?Bone is a living, growing part of your body. Throughout your lifetime, new bone cells grow and old bone cells break down to make room for the new, stronger bone. When you have osteoporosis, the old bone breaks down faster than the new bone can replace it. As this happens, the bones lose minerals (such as calcium). This makes bones weaker and more likely to break even after a minor injury, like a little bump or fall. All the bones in your body are weaker if you have osteoporosis but not everyone who has osteoporosis gets a broken bone.To find out whether a person's bones are weaker than normal, a bone mineral density test is done using a special x-ray, a computed tomography (CT) scan or an ultrasound.In some children with a chronic illness, osteoporosis could be caused by condition they have or because of the medications they take for their condition. This is known as secondary osteoporosis.Bisphosphonates are a type of medication that slows down the cells that break down the old bone. This means the cells that grow new bone have a chance to catch up and strengthen the bone." } ]
query-laysum	7351	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNon-infectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis (NIIPPU) represent a heterogenous collection of autoimmune and inflammatory disorders isolated to or concentrated in the posterior structures of the eye. Because NIIPPU is typically a chronic condition, people with NIIPPU frequently require treatment with steroid-sparing immunosuppressive therapy. Methotrexate, mycophenolate, cyclosporine, azathioprine, and tacrolimus are non-biologic, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) which have been used to treat people with NIIPPU.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness and safety of selected DMARDs (methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, and azathioprine) in the treatment of NIIPPU in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE, Embase, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, most recently on 16 April 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selected DMARDs (methotrexate, mycophenolate, tacrolimus, cyclosporine, and azathioprine) with placebo, standard of care (topical steroids, with or without oral steroids), or with each other.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 11 RCTs with a total of 601 participants in this review.\nDMARDs versus control\nTwo studies compared an experimental DMARD (cyclosporine A or enteric-coated mycophenolate [EC-MPS]) plus oral steroid with steroid monotherapy. We did not pool these results into a meta-analysis because the dose of cyclosporine used was much higher than that used in current clinical practice. The evidence is very uncertain about whether EC-MPS plus low-dose oral steroid results in a higher proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation over steroid monotherapy (risk ratio [RR] 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 7.17; 1 study, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was reported separately for right and left eyes. The evidence for improvement (lower logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) indicates better vision) between the groups is very uncertain (mean difference [MD] -0.03 and -0.10, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.90 and -0.27 to 0.07 for right and left, respectively; 1 study, 82 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for the following outcomes: proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity, with confirmed macular edema, or achieving steroid-sparing control. The evidence for the proportion of participants requiring cessation of medication in the DMARD versus control group is very uncertain (RR 2.61, 95% CI 0.11 to 60.51; 1 study, 41 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nMethotrexate versus mycophenolate\nWe were able to combine two studies into a meta-analysis comparing methotrexate versus mycophenolate mofetil. Methotrexate probably results in a slight increase in the proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation, including steroid-sparing control, compared to mycophenolate at six months (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.50; 2 studies, 261 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Change in BCVA was reported per eye and the treatments likely result in little to no difference in change in vision (MD 0.01 logMAR higher [worse] for methotrexate versus mycophenolate; 2 studies, 490 eyes; moderate-certainty evidence). No data were available for the proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the proportion of participants with confirmed macular edema between methotrexate versus mycophenolate (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.30; 2 studies, 35 eyes; very low-certainty). Methotrexate versus mycophenolate may result in little to no difference in the proportion of participants requiring cessation of medication (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.27; 2 studies, 296 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nSteroids with or without azathioprine versus cyclosporine A\nFour studies compared steroids with or without azathioprine (oral steroids, intravenous [IV] steroids, or azathioprine) to cyclosporine A. We excluded two studies from the meta-analysis because the participants were treated with 8 mg to 15 mg/kg/day of cyclosporine A, a significantly higher dose than is utilized today because of concerns for nephrotoxicity.\nThe remaining two studies were conducted in all Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease (VKH) populations and compared cyclosporine A to azathioprine or IV pulse-dose steroids. The evidence is very uncertain for whether the steroids with or without azathioprine or cyclosporine A influenced the proportion of participants achieving control of inflammation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; 2 studies, 112 participants; very low-certainty evidence), achieving steroid-sparing control (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 1 study, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or requiring cessation of medication (RR 0.85, 95% 0.21 to 3.45; 2 studies, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for improvement in BCVA (MD 0.04 logMAR lower [better] with the steroids with or without azathioprine versus cyclosporine A; 2 studies, 91 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available (with current cyclosporine A dosing) for the proportion of participants achieving a 2-line improvement in visual acuity or with confirmed macular edema.\nStudies not included in synthesis\nWe were unable to include three studies in any of the comparisons (in addition to the aforementioned studies excluded based on historic doses of cyclosporine A). One was a dose-response study comparing cyclosporine A to cyclosporine G, a formulation which was never licensed and is not clinically available. We excluded another study from meta-analysis because it compared cyclosporine A and tacrolimus, considered to be of the same class (calcineurin inhibitors). We were unable to combine the third study, which examined tacrolimus monotherapy versus tacrolimus plus oral steroid, with any group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a paucity of data regarding which DMARD is most effective or safe in NIIPPU. Studies in general were small, heterogenous in terms of their design and outcome measures, and often did not compare different classes of DMARD with each other. Methotrexate is probably slightly more efficacious than mycophenolate in achieving control of inflammation, including steroid-sparing control (moderate-certainty evidence), although there was insufficient evidence to prefer one medication over the other in the VKH subgroup (very low-certainty evidence). Methotrexate may result in little to no difference in safety outcomes compared to mycophenolate.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In this systematic review, we studied the available evidence on the effectiveness and safety of several medications used to treat a specific subset of inflammatory conditions of the back part of the eye." } ]
query-laysum	7352	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIntimate partner abuse (including coercive control, physical, sexual, economic, emotional and economic abuse) is common worldwide. Advocacy may help women who are in, or have left, an abusive intimate relationship, to stop or reduce repeat victimisation and overcome consequences of the abuse. Advocacy primarily involves education, safety planning support and increasing access to different services. It may be stand-alone or part of other services and interventions, and may be provided within healthcare, criminal justice, social, government or specialist domestic violence services. We focus on the abuse of women, as interventions for abused men require different considerations.\nObjectives\nTo assess advocacy interventions for intimate partner abuse in women, in terms of which interventions work for whom, why and in what circumstances.\nSearch methods\nIn January 2019 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, 12 other databases, two trials registers and two relevant websites. The search had three phases: scoping of articles to identify candidate theories; iterative recursive search for studies to explore and fill gaps in these theories; and systematic search for studies to test, confirm or refute our explanatory theory.\nSelection criteria\nEmpirical studies of any advocacy or multi-component intervention including advocacy, intended for women aged 15 years and over who were experiencing or had experienced any form of intimate partner abuse, or of advocates delivering such interventions, or experiences of women who were receiving or had received such an intervention. Partner abuse encompasses coercive control in the absence of physical abuse. For theory development, we included studies that did not strictly fit our original criteria but provided information useful for theory development.\nData collection and analysis\nFour review authors independently extracted data, with double assessment of 10% of the data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. We adopted RAMESES (Realist and meta-narrative evidence syntheses: evolving standards) standards for reporting results. We applied a realist approach to the analysis.\nMain results\nWe included 98 studies (147 articles). There were 88 core studies: 37 focused on advocates (4 survey-based, 3 instrument development, 30 qualitative focus) and seven on abused women (6 qualitative studies, 1 survey); 44 were experimental intervention studies (some including qualitative evaluations). Ten further studies (3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1 intervention process evaluation, 1 qualitative study, 2 mixed methods studies, 2 surveys of women, and 1 mixed methods study of women and staff) did not fit the original criteria but added useful information, as befitting a realist approach. Two studies are awaiting classification and three are ongoing.\nAdvocacy interventions varied considerably in contact hours, profession delivering and setting.\nWe constructed a conceptual model from six essential principles based on context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) patterns.\nWe have moderate and high confidence in evidence for the importance of considering both women's vulnerabilities and intersectionalities and the trade-offs of abuse-related decisions in the contexts of individual women's lives. Decisions should consider the risks to the woman's safety from the abuse. Whether actions resulting from advocacy increase or decrease abuse depends on contextual factors (e.g. severity and type of abuse), and the outcomes the particular advocacy intervention is designed to address (e.g. increasing successful court orders versus decreasing depression).\nWe have low confidence in evidence regarding the significance of physical dependencies, being pregnant or having children. There were links between setting (high confidence), and potentially also theoretical underpinnings of interventions, type, duration and intensity of advocacy, advocate discipline and outcomes (moderate and low confidence). A good therapeutic alliance was important (high confidence); this alliance might be improved when advocates are matched with abused women on ethnicity or abuse experience, exercise cultural humility, and remove structural barriers to resource access by marginalised women. We identified significant challenges for advocates in inter-organisational working, vicarious traumatisation, and lack of clarity on how much support to give a woman (moderate and high confidence). To work effectively, advocates need ongoing training, role clarity, access to resources, and peer and institutional support.\nOur provisional model highlights the complex way that factors combine and interact for effective advocacy. We confirmed the core ingredients of advocacy according to both women and advocates, supported by studies and theoretical considerations: education and information on abuse; rights and resources; active referral and liaising with other services; risk assessment and safety planning. We were unable to confirm the impact of complexity of the intervention (low confidence). Our low confidence in the evidence was driven mostly by a lack of relevant studies, rather than poor-quality studies, despite the size of the review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nResults confirm the core ingredients of advocacy and suggest its use rests on sound theoretical underpinnings. We determined the elements of a good therapeutic alliance and how it might be improved, with a need for particular considerations of the factors affecting marginalised women. Women's goals from advocacy should be considered in the contexts of their personal lives. Women's safety was not necessarily at greatest risk from staying with the abuser. Potentially, if undertaken for long enough, advocacy should benefit an abused woman in terms of at least one outcome providing the goals are matched to each woman's needs. Some outcomes may take months to be determined. Where abuse is severe, some interventions may increase abuse. Advocates have a challenging role and must be supported emotionally, through provision of resources and through professional training, by organisations and peers.\nFuture research should consider the different principles identified in this review, and study outcomes should be considered in relation to the mechanisms and contexts elucidated. More longitudinal evidence is needed. Single-subject research designs may help determine exactly when effect no longer increases, to determine the duration of longitudinal work, which will likely differ for vulnerable and marginalised women. Further work is needed to ascertain how to tailor advocacy interventions to cultural variations and rural and resource-poor settings. The methods used in the included studies may, in some cases, limit the applicability and completeness of the data reported. Economic analyses are required to ascertain if resources devoted to advocacy interventions are cost-effective in healthcare and community settings.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key findings\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found 98 studies from 15 countries. Of the 88 core studies, 37 asked advocates about their views and experiences and seven asked abused women about advocacy (two of these also asked staff). The other 44 core studies helped us understand the way advocacy works and how effective it is. We included 10 additional studies that did not fit the original criteria but added useful information, as befitting a realist approach. Of these, three were randomised controlled trials (RCTs; a type of experiment in which participants are randomly allocated to two or more interventions), one was an intervention process evaluation, one was a qualitative (e.g. focus groups, interviews) study, two studies used mixed methods (a combination of qualitative and quantitative research) to explore women's experiences, two were surveys of women, and one was a mixed methods study of women and staff. We were unable to obtain the full texts of two studies that we thought might be core and three further relevant studies are still ongoing.\nAdvocacy interventions varied considerably in duration, participating staff (e.g. nurses, psychologists, social workers), and setting (e.g. healthcare settings, domestic violence refuges or shelters).\nIn the studies, women and advocates agreed that the following were all important parts of advocacy: education and information on abuse and on women's rights and sources of help (resources); active referral to, and help in accessing other services; assessment of risk of repeat abuse; and safety planning to avoid it. Trust in the advocate is important and more likely when the advocate and the woman share an ethnic background or the advocate was also abused. Advocates must help women consider their best options, depending on things like ethnicity, immigration status, where they live, the severity and type of the abuse experienced and finances. There are trade-offs when making decisions to reduce the abuse and women's safety was not necessarily at greatest risk from staying with the abuser. Advocacy could potentially have some benefits for abused women, if undertaken for long enough, but its goals need to match each woman's needs. It may take months to have an effect. Two studies (one involving the police and one in an antenatal clinic) found that where abuse is severe to start with, some interventions may possibly prompt the abuser to increase the abuse. Advocates want to help women and can get stressed if they do not feel helpful enough, so they need support from organisations and other advocates, including repeat training, debriefs, and funding to do their job well." } ]
query-laysum	7353	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nConventional treatment of X-linked hypophosphatemia with oral phosphate and calcitriol can heal rickets, but it does not always raise serum phosphate concentrations significantly, nor does it always normalize linear growth. Some clinical trials suggest that combining recombinant human growth hormone therapy with conventional treatment improves growth velocity, phosphate retention, and bone mineral density, but some clinical trials suggest that it appears to aggravate the pre-existent disproportionate stature of such children. This is an updated version of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether recombinant human growth hormone therapy for children with X-linked hypophosphatemia is associated with changes in longitudinal growth, mineral metabolism, endocrine function, renal function, bone mineral density, body proportions, and also with any adverse effects.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. In addition, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE and the reference lists of identified trials and other reviews. We also undertook some additional handsearching of relevant journals and conference proceedings.\nDate of the most recent search: 12 January 2021\nSelection criteria\nAll randomized controlled studies or quasi-randomized controlled studies comparing growth hormone (alone or combined with conventional treatment) with either placebo or conventional treatment alone in children with X-linked hypophosphatemia.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed studies for risk of bias and extracted data from eligible studies. GRADE criteria were used to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included two studies (20 participants) in the review. In one cross-over study, results showed that recombinant human growth hormone therapy may improve the height standard deviation (SDS) score (z score), but we are unsure whether the intervention was the reason behind a transient increase in serum phosphate and tubular maximum for phosphate reabsorption. In the second, parallel study, treatment may also have improved the height SDS from baseline in the rhGH group compared to the control group, although no significant difference was seen between groups after three years, MD 0.50 SDS (95 % CI -0.54 to 1.54) (low-certainty evidence). The treatment was possibly well-tolerated during both studies with only transient adverse effects seen in three participants (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether growth hormone improves serum phosphate levels or change in TmP/GFR (very low-certainty evidence). The treatment may make little or no difference to alkaline phosphatase levels (low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe do not have enough high-certainty evidence to recommend the use of recombinant human growth hormone therapy in children with X-linked hypophosphatemia.\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 mostly graded the certainty of the evidence as low or very low. This was because the trials were very small and only included a few children. We were also concerned that there might have been some bias in the results because of the design of the smaller cross-over trial." } ]
query-laysum	7354	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis (CF) is an inherited condition causing disease most noticeably in the lungs, digestive tract and pancreas. People with CF often have malnutrition and growth delay. Adequate nutritional supplementation does not improve growth optimally and hence an anabolic agent, recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH), has been proposed as a potential intervention. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rhGH therapy in improving lung function, quality of life and clinical status of children and young adults with CF.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of latest search: 12 January 2021.\nWe also searched ongoing trials registers:\nclinicaltrials.gov from the United States - date of latest search 19 Jun 2021;\nWHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) - date of latest search 05 March 2018 (not available in 2021).\nWe conducted a search of relevant endocrine journals and proceedings of the Endocrinology Society meetings using Web of Science, Scopus and Proceedings First. Date of latest search: 21 Jun 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of all preparations of rhGH compared to either no treatment, or placebo, or each other at any dose (high-dose and low-dose) or route and for any duration, in children or young adults (aged up to 25 years) diagnosed with CF (by sweat test or genetic testing).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently screened papers, extracted trial details and assessed their risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system.\nMain results\nWe included eight trials (291 participants, aged between five and 23 years) in the current version of the review. Seven trials compared standard-dose rhGH (approximately 0.3 mg/kg/week) to no treatment and one three-arm trial (63 participants) compared placebo, standard-dose rhGH (0.3 mg/kg/week) and high-dose rhGH (0.5 mg/kg/week). Six trials lasted for one year and two trials for six months. We found that rhGH treatment may improve some of the pulmonary function outcomes, but there was no difference between standard and high-dose levels (low-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency across the trials, small number of participants and short duration of therapy). The trials show evidence of improvement in the anthropometric parameters (height, weight and lean body mass) with rhGH therapy, again no differences between dose levels. We found improvement in height for all comparisons (very low- to low-certainty evidence), but improvements in weight and lean body mass were only reported for standard-dose rhGH versus no treatment (very low-certainty evidence). There is some evidence indicating a change in the level of fasting blood glucose with rhGH therapy, however, it did not cross the clinical threshold for diagnosis of diabetes in the trials of short duration (low-certainty evidence). There is low- to very low-certainty evidence for improvement of pulmonary exacerbations with no further significant adverse effects, but this is limited by the short duration of trials and the small number of participants. One small trial provided inconsistent evidence on improvement in quality of life (very low-certainty evidence). There is limited evidence from three trials in improvements in exercise capacity (low-certainty evidence). None of the trials have systematically compared the expense of therapy on overall healthcare costs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen compared with no treatment, rhGH therapy is effective in improving the intermediate outcomes in height, weight and lean body mass. Some measures of pulmonary function showed moderate improvement, but no consistent benefit was seen across all trials. The significant change in blood glucose levels, although not causing diabetes, emphasizes the need for careful monitoring of this adverse effect with therapy in a population predisposed to CF-related diabetes. No significant changes in quality of life, clinical status or side-effects were observed in this review due to the small number of participants. Long-term, well-designed randomised controlled trials of rhGH in individuals with CF are required prior to routine clinical use of rhGH in CF.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We reviewed the evidence about the effects of recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) on the health of people with cystic fibrosis (CF)." } ]
query-laysum	7355	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a common gynaecological condition accounting for 20% of all gynaecological referrals. There are wide ranges of causes with overlapping symptomatology, therefore the management of the condition is a formidable challenge for clinicians. The aetiology of CPP is heterogeneous and in many cases, no clear diagnosis can be reached. It is in this scenario that the label of chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) can be applied. We defined women with CPPS as having a minimum duration of pain of at least 6 months, including with a diagnosis of pelvic congestion syndrome, but excluding pain caused by a condition such as endometriosis. Many surgical interventions have been tried in isolation or in conjunction with non-surgical interventions in the management with variable results. Surgical interventions are invasive and carry operative risks. Surgical interventions must be evaluated for their effectiveness prior to their prevalent use in the management of women with CPPS.\nObjectives\nTo review the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions in the management of women with CPPS.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO, on 23 April 2021 for any randomised controlled trials (RCT) for surgical interventions in women with CPPS. We also searched the citation lists of relevant publications, two trial registries, relevant journals, abstracts, conference proceedings and several key grey literature sources.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs with women who had CPPS. The review authors were prepared to consider studies of any surgical intervention used for the management of CPPS. Outcome measures were pain rating scales, adverse events, psychological outcomes, quality of life (QoL) measures and requirement for analgesia.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently evaluated studies for inclusion and extracted data using the forms designed according to Cochrane guidelines. For each included trial, we collected information regarding the method of randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, data reporting and analyses. We reported pooled results as mean difference (MDs) or odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) by the Mantel-Haenszel method. If similar outcomes were reported on different scales, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD). We applied GRADE criteria to judge the overall certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nFour studies met our inclusion criteria involving 216 women with CPP and no identifiable cause.\nAdhesiolysis compared to no surgery or diagnostic laparoscopy\nWe are uncertain of the effect of adhesiolysis on pelvic pain scores postoperatively at three months (MD −7.3, 95% CI −29.9 to 15.3; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence), six months (MD −14.3, 95% CI −35.9 to 7.3; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 12 months postsurgery (MD 0.00, 95% CI −4.60 to 4.60; 1 study, 43 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAdhesiolysis may improve both the emotional wellbeing (MD 24.90, 95% CI 7.92 to 41.88; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence) and social support (MD 23.90, 95% CI −1.77 to 49.57; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence) components of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30, and both the emotional component (MD 32.30, 95% CI 13.16 to 51.44; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the physical component of the 12-item Short Form (MD 22.90, 95% CI 10.97 to 34.83; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence) when compared to diagnostic laparoscopy.\nWe are uncertain of the safety of adhesiolysis compared to comparator groups due to low-certainty evidence and lack of structured adverse event reporting.\nNo studies reported on psychological outcomes or requirements for analgesia.\nLaparoscopic uterosacral ligament ablation or resection compared to diagnostic laparoscopy/other treatment\nWe are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic uterosacral ligament/nerve ablation (LUNA) or resection compared to other treatments postoperatively at three months (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.93; 1 study, 51 participants; low-certainty evidence) and six months (MD −2.10, 95% CI −4.38 to 0.18; 1 study, 74 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At 12 months post-surgery, we are uncertain of the effect of LUNA on the rate of successful treatment compared to diagnostic laparoscopy. One study of 56 participants found no difference in the effect of LUNA on non-cyclical pain (P = 0.854) or dyspareunia (P = 0.41); however, there was a difference favouring LUNA on dysmenorrhea (P = 0.045) and dyschezia (P = 0.05). We are also uncertain of the effect of LUNA compared to vaginal uterosacral ligament resection on pelvic pain at 12 months (MD 2.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.53; 1 study, 74 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain of the safety of LUNA or resection compared to comparator groups due to the lack of structured adverse event reporting.\nWomen undergoing LUNA may require more analgesia postoperatively than those undergoing other treatments (P < 0.001; 1 study, 74 participants).\nNo studies reported psychological outcomes or QoL.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain about the benefit of adhesiolysis or LUNA in management of pain in women with CPPS based on the current literature. There may be a QoL benefit to adhesiolysis in improving both emotional wellbeing and social support, as measured by the validated QoL tools. It was not possible to synthesis evidence on adverse events as these were only reported narratively in some studies, in which none were observed. With the inadequate objective assessment of adverse events, especially long-term adverse events, associated with adhesiolysis or LUNA for CPPS, there is currently little to support these interventions for CPPS.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. Limitations included poor reporting of study methods and imprecision (too few events, too few included studies) for some comparisons." } ]
query-laysum	7356	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRecognition of some of the limitations of titanium plates and screws used for the fixation of bones has led to the development of plates manufactured from bioresorbable materials. Whilst resorbable plates appear to offer clinical advantages over metal plates in orthognathic surgery, concerns remain about the stability of fixation and the length of time required for their degradation and the possibility of foreign body reactions. This review compares the use of titanium versus bioresorbable plates in orthognathic surgery and is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2007.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of bioresorbable fixation systems with titanium systems used during orthognathic surgery.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 January 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library (searched 20 January 2017); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 January 2017); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 January 2017). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov; searched 20 January 2017), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (searched 20 January 2017) for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing bioresorbable versus titanium fixation systems used for orthognathic surgery in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We resolved disagreement by discussion. Clinical heterogeneity between the included trials precluded pooling of data, and only a descriptive summary is presented.\nMain results\nThis review included two trials, involving 103 participants, one comparing titanium with resorbable plates and screws and the other titanium with resorbable screws. Both studies were at high risk of bias and provided very limited data for the primary outcomes of this review. All participants in one trial suffered mild to moderate postoperative discomfort with no statistically significant difference between the two plating groups at different follow-up times. Mean scores of patient satisfaction were 7.43 to 8.63 (range 0 to 10) with no statistically significant difference between the two groups throughout follow-up. Adverse effects reported in one study were two plate exposures in each group occurring between the third and ninth months. Plate exposures occurred mainly in the posterior maxillary region, except for one titanium plate exposure in the mandibular premolar region. Known causes of infection were associated with loosened screws and wound dehiscence with no statistically significant difference in the infection rate between titanium (3/196), and resorbable (3/165) plates.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe do not have sufficient evidence to determine if titanium plates or resorbable plates are superior for fixation of bones after orthognathic surgery. This review provides insufficient evidence to show any difference in postoperative pain and discomfort, level of patient satisfaction, plate exposure or infection for plate and screw fixation using either titanium or resorbable materials.\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": "Both studies were at high risk of bias and provided very limited data. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine if titanium plates or resorbable plates are superior for the fixation of bones after corrective jaw surgery. This review provides insufficient evidence to show any difference in postoperative pain and discomfort, level of patient satisfaction, plate exposure or infection for plate and screw fixation using either titanium or resorbable materials." } ]
query-laysum	7357	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPremature ovarian insufficiency (POI) is a clinical syndrome resulting from loss of ovarian function before the age of 40. It is a state of hypergonadotropic hypogonadism, characterised by amenorrhoea or oligomenorrhoea, with low ovarian sex hormones (oestrogen deficiency) and elevated pituitary gonadotrophins. POI with primary amenorrhoea may occur as a result of chromosomal and genetic abnormalities, such as Turner syndrome, Fragile X, or autosomal gene defects; secondary amenorrhoea may be iatrogenic after the surgical removal of the ovaries, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy. Other causes include autoimmune diseases, viral infections, and environmental factors; in most cases, POI is idiopathic. Appropriate replacement of sex hormones in women with POI may facilitate the achievement of near normal uterine development. However, the optimal effective hormone therapy (HT) regimen to maximise the reproductive potential for women with POI remains unclear.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effectiveness and safety of different hormonal regimens on uterine and endometrial development in women with POI.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers in September 2021. We also checked references of included studies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of various hormonal preparations on the uterine development of women diagnosed with POI.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was uterine volume; secondary outcomes were endometrial thickness, endometrial histology, uterine perfusion, reproductive outcomes, and any reported adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included three studies (52 participants analysed in total) investigating the role of various hormonal preparations in three different contexts, which deemed meta-analysis unfeasible. We found very low-certainty evidence; the main limitation was very serious imprecision due to small sample size.\nConjugated oral oestrogens versus transdermal 17ß-oestradiol\nWe are uncertain of the effect of conjugated oral oestrogens compared to transdermal 17ß-oestradiol (mean difference (MD) -18.2 (mL), 95% confidence interval (CI) -23.18 to -13.22; 1 RCT, N = 12; very low-certainty evidence) on uterine volume, measured after 12 months of treatment. The study reported no other relevant outcomes (including adverse events).\nLow versus high 17ß-oestradiol dose\nWe are uncertain of the effect of a lower dose of 17ß-oestradiol compared to a higher dose of 17ß-oestradiol on uterine volume after three or five years of treatment, or adverse events (1 RCT, N = 20; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported no other relevant outcomes.\nOral versus vaginal administration of oestradiol and dydrogesterone\nWe are uncertain of the effect of an oral or vaginal administration route on uterine volume and endometrial thickness after 14 or 21 days of administration (1 RCT, N = 20; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported no other relevant outcomes (including adverse events).\nAuthors' conclusions\nNo clear conclusions can be drawn in this systematic review, due to the very low-certainty of the evidence.\nThere is a need for pragmatic, well designed, randomised controlled trials, with adequate power to detect differences between various HT regimens on uterine growth, endometrial development, and pregnancy outcomes following the transfer of donated gametes or embryos in women diagnosed with POI.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We wanted to find out the best combination of hormones that would allow women to have a baby after they suffered from early failure of the ovaries. We also wanted to find out the unwanted effects of the hormone treatments used to treat early failure of the ovaries." } ]
query-laysum	7358	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nRadiotherapy and chemotherapy are used to improve survival in colorectal cancer but adverse effects can be a problem. Severe adverse effects may result in dose reduction or cessation of treatment, which have an impact on survival. Coriolus versicolor (Trametes versicolor or 'Turkey Tail') mushroom and its extracts have been used by cancer patients to help with adverse effects.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of adjunctive Coriolus versicolor (Trametes versicolor) and its extracts on adverse effects and on survival during colorectal cancer treatment (chemotherapy and radiotherapy) compared with no adjunctive treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL, Chinese and Japanese databases, and trials registers to 12th April 2022 without restriction of language or publication status. We screened reference lists and attempted to contact researchers in the field to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy and safety of Coriolus versicolor and its extracts in adult participants with a confirmed diagnosis of colorectal cancer, in addition to conventional treatment. Interventions included any preparation of Coriolus versicolor (raw, decoction, capsule, tablet, tincture, extract, injection), any part of the fungus (cap, stem, mycelium or whole), in any dose or regimen. Outcomes included adverse events rates, survival, disease progression and recurrence, response rates and quality of life.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted outcome data, and assessed risk of bias. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included seven parallel RCTs (1569 participants). Six studies (1516 participants) were conducted in Japan and one study (53 participants) in China. Studies included both male and female participants with colorectal cancer (five studies), colon cancer (one study) or rectal cancer (one study). Participants were diagnosed with cancer ranging from stage II to stage IV. Coriolus was used in the form of an extract in all seven studies and was generally used after curative resection, although in one study it was used preoperatively. Duration of treatment with the extract varied between four weeks and three years. Chemotherapeutic regimens in six studies consisted of an oral fluoropyrimidine which was preceded by weekly intravenous 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) in one study, by mitomycin C in two studies, and which was combined with folinic acid (Leucovorin) in two studies and with radiotherapy preoperatively in one study. XELOX (oxaliplatin intravenous infusion and capecitabine) was used in the remaining study.\nWe found very low-certainty evidence of little to no effect of adjunctive treatment with Coriolus (in the form of an extract, polysaccharide-Krestin, PSK) on withdrawal from treatment due to adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 2.34; 703 participants; 3 studies;). We are uncertain whether adjunctive Coriolus versicolor and its extracts compared to usual care alone resulted in a difference in adverse events including neutropenia (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71; 133 participants; 3 studies; very low certainty), oral cavity disorders such as oral dryness and mucositis (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.03; 1022 participants; 5 studies; very low certainty), nausea (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.22; 969 participants; 4 studies; very low certainty), diarrhoea (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.86; 1022 participants; 5 studies; very low certainty), and fatigue (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.33 to 1.78; 133 participants; 3 studies; very low certainty).\nWe found low-certainty evidence of a small effect of adjunctive Coriolus on improved survival at five years compared with no adjunctive care (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.15; 1094 participants; 3 studies; number needed to benefit (NNTB) = 16 (95% Cl 9 to 70). The effect at earlier time points was unclear.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the very low certainty of evidence, we were uncertain about the effect of adjunctive Coriolus (in the form of an extract PSK) on adverse events resulting from conventional chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. This includes effects on withdrawal of treatment due to adverse events and on specific adverse outcomes such as neutropenia and nausea. The uncertainty in the evidence also means that it was unclear whether any adverse events were due to the chemotherapy or to the extract itself. While there was low-certainty evidence of a small effect on overall survival at five years, the influence of reduced adverse effects on this could not be determined. In addition, chemotherapy regimens used in assessing this outcome do not reflect current preferred practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Participants in all the studies were aware of whether they had been treated with Coriolus and this may have influenced their reporting of changes in nausea and other self-reported problems. It should not have made any difference to laboratory tests such as blood tests. Some of the methods reported in studies were unclear and few patients were included in many of the comparisons that we examined. We found that the evidence was either low or very low certainty for all comparisons." } ]
query-laysum	7359	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nErythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are commonly used to treat anaemia in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, their use has been associated with cardiovascular events. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy and safety of ESAs (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, and biosimilar ESAs against each other, placebo, or no treatment) to treat anaemia in adults with CKD.\nSearch methods\nIn this update, we searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 29 April 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\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included a comparison of an ESA (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, darbepoetin alfa, methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta, a biosimilar epoetin or a biosimilar darbepoetin alfa) with another ESA, placebo or no treatment in adults with CKD were considered for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo independent authors screened the search results and extracted data. Data synthesis was performed using random-effects pairwise meta-analysis (expressed as odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI)) and network meta-analysis. We assessed for heterogeneity and inconsistency within meta-analyses using standard techniques and planned subgroup and meta-regression to explore sources of heterogeneity or inconsistency. We assessed certainty in treatment estimates for the primary outcomes (preventing blood transfusions and death (any cause)) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.\nMain results\nSixty-two new studies (9237 participants) were included in this update, so the review now includes 117 studies with 25,237 participants. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in most methodological domains. Overall, results remain similar in this update compared to our previous review in 2014.\nFor preventing blood transfusion, epoetin alfa (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.61; low certainty evidence) and epoetin beta (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.47; low certainty evidence) may be superior to placebo, and darbepoetin alfa was probably superior to placebo (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.67; moderate certainty evidence). Methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.02; very low certainty evidence), a biosimilar epoetin (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.03; very low certainty evidence) and a biosimilar darbepoetin alfa (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.91; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on preventing blood transfusion compared to placebo. The comparative effects of ESAs compared with another ESA on preventing blood transfusions were uncertain, in low to very low certainty evidence.\nEffects on death (any cause) were uncertain for epoetin alfa (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.22; low certainty evidence), epoetin beta (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.20; low certainty evidence), methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.71; very low certainty evidence), a biosimilar epoetin (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.36; low certainty evidence) and a biosimilar darbepoetin alfa (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.23; very low certainty evidence) compared to placebo. There was probably no difference between darbepoetin alfa and placebo on the odds of death (any cause) (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; moderate certainty evidence). The comparative effects of ESAs compared with another ESA on death (any cause) were uncertain in low to very low certainty evidence.\nEpoetin beta probably increased the odds of hypertension when compared to placebo (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.00; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, epoetin alfa (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.59; very low certainty evidence), darbepoetin alfa (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.14; low certainty evidence) and methoxy polyethylene glycol-epoetin beta (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.74; low certainty evidence) may increase the odds of hypertension, but a biosimilar epoetin (OR 1.88, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.67; low certainty evidence) and biosimilar darbepoetin alfa (OR 1.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 4.66; low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hypertension. The comparative effects of all ESAs compared with another ESA, placebo or no treatment on cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, vascular access thrombosis, kidney failure, and breathlessness were uncertain. Network analysis for fatigue was not possible due to sparse data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe comparative effects of different ESAs on blood transfusions, death (any cause and cardiovascular), major cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, vascular access thrombosis, kidney failure, fatigue and breathlessness were uncertain.\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": "Based on existing research, we cannot be confident that different epoetin drugs are better or worse than each other for chances of needing a blood transfusion, death, a heart attack or stroke, having a clot in a fistula or dialysis vascular catheter, or the chances of needing dialysis for people with milder kidney disease. We are also unsure whether different forms of epoetin drugs are better at improving symptoms of anaemia, such as tiredness or breathlessness, which were not reported in most available research studies." } ]
query-laysum	7360	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSupportive interventions such as serving meals in a dining room environment or the use of assistants to feed patients are frequently recommended for the management of nutritionally vulnerable groups. Such interventions are included in many policy and guideline documents and have implications for staff time but may incur additional costs, yet there appears to be a lack of evidence for their efficacy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of supportive interventions for enhancing dietary intake in malnourished or nutritionally at-risk adults.\nSearch methods\nWe identified publications from comprehensive searches of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, SCOPUS, ISI Web of Science databases, scrutiny of the reference lists of included trials and related systematic reviews and handsearching the abstracts of relevant meetings. The date of the last search for all databases was 31 March 2013. Additional searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were undertaken to September 2016. The date of the last search for these databases was 14 September 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of supportive interventions given with the aim of enhancing dietary intake in nutritionally vulnerable adults compared with usual care.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors and for the final search, the editor, selected trials from titles and abstracts and independently assessed eligibility of selected trials. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias, as well as evaluating overall quality of the evidence utilising the GRADE instrument, and then agreed as they entered data into the review. The likelihood of clinical heterogeneity amongst trials was judged to be high as trials were in populations with widely different clinical backgrounds, conducted in different healthcare settings and despite some grouping of similar interventions, involved interventions that varied considerably. We were only able, therefore, to conduct meta-analyses for the outcome measures, 'all-cause mortality', 'hospitalisation' and 'nutritional status (weight change)'.\nMain results\nForty-one trials (10,681 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Trials were grouped according to similar interventions (changes to organisation of nutritional care (N = 13; 3456 participants), changes to the feeding environment (N = 5; 351 participants), modification of meal profile or pattern (N = 12; 649 participants), additional supplementation of meals (N = 10; 6022 participants) and home meal delivery systems (N = 1; 203 participants). Follow-up ranged from ‘duration of hospital stay’ to 12 months.\nThe overall quality of evidence was moderate to very low, with the majority of trials judged to be at an unclear risk of bias in several risk of bias domains. The risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality was 0.78 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92); P = 0.004; 12 trials; 6683 participants; moderate-quality evidence. This translates into 26 (95% CI 9 to 41) fewer cases of death per 1000 participants in favour of supportive interventions. The RR for number of participants with any medical complication ranged from 1.42 in favour of control compared with 0.59 in favour of supportive interventions (very low-quality evidence). Only five trials (4451 participants) investigated health-related quality of life showing no substantial differences between intervention and comparator groups. Information on patient satisfaction was unreliable. The effects of supportive interventions versus comparators on hospitalisation showed a mean difference (MD) of -0.5 days (95% CI -2.6 to 1.6); P = 0.65; 5 trials; 667 participants; very low-quality evidence. Only three of 41 included trials (4108 participants; very low-quality evidence) reported on adverse events, describing intolerance to the supplement (diarrhoea, vomiting; 5/34 participants) and discontinuation of oral nutritional supplements because of refusal or dislike of taste (567/2017 participants). Meta-analysis across 17 trials with adequate data on weight change revealed an overall improvement in weight in favour of supportive interventions versus control: MD 0.6 kg (95% CI 0.21 to 1.02); 2024 participants; moderate-quality evidence. A total of 27 trials investigated nutritional intake with a majority of trials not finding marked differences in energy intake between intervention and comparator groups. Only three trials (1152 participants) reported some data on economic costs but did not use accepted health economic methods (very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence of moderate to very low quality to suggest that supportive interventions to improve nutritional care results in minimal weight gain. Most of the evidence for the lower risk of all-cause mortality for supportive interventions comes from hospital-based trials and more research is needed to confirm this effect. There is very low-quality evidence regarding adverse effects; therefore whilst some of these interventions are advocated at a national level clinicians should recognise the lack of clear evidence to support their role. This review highlights the importance of assessing patient-important outcomes in future research.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "It is possible that supportive interventions for enhancing dietary intake in nutritionally vulnerable groups reduce death from any cause (approximately 23 fewer cases of death per 1000 participants in favour of supportive interventions). However, this has to be confirmed by more evidence from high-quality randomised controlled studies. The number of participants experiencing any medical complication did not differ substantially between the supportive interventions and the comparator groups. The same was found for health-related quality of life (which is physical, mental, emotional and social health attributed to health), patient satisfaction, nutritional or energy intake and days spent in hospital. Economic costs were not well investigated.\nOnly three studies reported on side effects, describing intolerance to the nutritional supplement (such as diarrhoea or vomiting in 5 of 34 participants) and discontinuation of oral nutritional supplements because of refusal or dislike of taste (567 of 2017 participants).\nAfter analysing 15 studies in 1945 participants we found a beneficial effect of supportive interventions compared with comparators on weight: on average people in the supportive interventions groups increased their weight 0.6 kg more than people in the comparator groups.\nThis evidence is up to date as of September 2016." } ]
query-laysum	7361	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBuruli ulcer is a necrotizing cutaneous infection caused by infection with Mycobacterium ulcerans bacteria that occurs mainly in tropical and subtropical regions. The infection progresses from nodules under the skin to deep ulcers, often on the upper and lower limbs or on the face. If left undiagnosed and untreated, it can lead to lifelong disfigurement and disabilities. It is often treated with drugs and surgery.\nObjectives\nTo summarize the evidence of drug treatments for treating Buruli ulcer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (Ovid); and LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature; BIREME). We also searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/). All searches were run up to 19 December 2017. We also checked the reference lists of articles identified by the literature search, and contacted leading researchers in this topic area to identify any unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared antibiotic therapy to placebo or alternative therapy such as surgery, or that compared different antibiotic regimens. We also included prospective observational studies that evaluated different antibiotic regimens with or without surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed methodological quality. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 18 studies: five RCTs involving a total of 319 participants, ranging from 12 participants to 151 participants, and 13 prospective observational studies, with 1665 participants. Studies evaluated various drugs usually in addition to surgery, and were carried out across eight countries in areas with high Buruli ulcer endemicity in West Africa and Australia. Only one RCT reported adequate methods to minimize bias. Regarding monotherapy, one RCT and one observational study evaluated clofazimine, and one RCT evaluated sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim. All three studies had small sample sizes, and no treatment effect was demonstrated. The remaining studies examined combination therapy.\nRifampicin combined with streptomycin\nWe found one RCT and six observational studies which evaluated rifampicin combined with streptomycin for different lengths of treatment (2, 4, 8, or 12 weeks) (941 participants). The RCT did not demonstrate a difference between the drugs added to surgery compared with surgery alone for recurrence at 12 months, but was underpowered (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.51; 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nAn additional five single-arm observational studies with 828 participants using this regimen for eight weeks with surgery (given to either all participants or to a select group) reported healing rates ranging from 84.5% to 100%, assessed between six weeks and one year. Four observational studies reported healing rates for participants who received the regimen alone without surgery, reporting healing rates ranging from 48% to 95% assessed between eight weeks and one year.\nRifampicin combined with clarithromycin\nTwo observational studies administered combined rifampicin and clarithromycin. One study evaluated the regimen alone (no surgery) for eight weeks and reported a healing rate of 50% at 12 months (30 participants). Another study evaluated the regimen administered for various durations (as determined by the clinicians, durations unspecified) with surgery and reported a healing rate of 100% at 12 months (21 participants).\nRifampicin with streptomycin initially, changing to rifampicin with clarithromycin in consolidation phase\nOne RCT evaluated this regimen (four weeks in each phase) against continuing with rifampicin and streptomycin in the consolidation phase (total eight weeks). All included participants had small lesions, and healing rates were above 90% in both groups without surgery (healing rate at 12 months RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; 151 participants; low-certainty evidence). One single-arm observational study evaluating the substitution of streptomycin with clarithromycin in the consolidation phase (6 weeks, total 8 weeks) without surgery given to a select group showed a healing rate of 98% at 12 months (41 participants).\nNovel combination therapy\nTwo large prospective studies in Australia evaluated some novel regimens. One study evaluating rifampicin combined with either ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, or moxifloxacin without surgery reported a healing rate of 76.5% at 12 months (132 participants). Another study evaluating combinations of two to three drugs from rifampicin, ciprofloxacin, clarithromycin, ethambutol, moxifloxacin, or amikacin with surgery reported a healing rate of 100% (90 participants).\nAdverse effects were reported in only three RCTs (158 participants) and eight prospective observational studies (878 participants), and were consistent with what is already known about the adverse effect profile of these drugs. Paradoxical reactions (clinical deterioration after treatment caused by enhanced immune response to M ulcerans) were evaluated in six prospective observational studies (822 participants), and the incidence of paradoxical reactions ranged from 1.9% to 26%.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhile the antibiotic combination treatments evaluated appear to be effective, we found insufficient evidence showing that any particular drug is more effective than another. How different sizes, lesions, and stages of the disease may contribute to healing and which kind of lesions are in need of surgery are unclear based on the included studies. Guideline development needs to consider these factors in designing practical treatment regimens. Forthcoming trials using clarithromycin with rifampicin and other trials of new regimens that also address these factors will help to identify the best regimens.\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 included 18 studies from eight countries in West Africa and Australia (1984 participants). Antibiotic combination treatments evaluated appear to be effective, but the evidence is insufficient to show that any particular drug is more effective than another.\nTesting treatments in Buruli ulcer is challenging as different sizes, lesions, and stages of the disease contribute to healing rates. Surgery also plays an important role in treating Buruli ulcer, and consequently the independent effect of drugs is difficult to assess. Trials of new regimens that also address these factors will help to identify the best regimens." } ]
query-laysum	7362	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFrailty is common in older people and is characterised by decline across multiple body systems, causing decreased physiological reserve and increased vulnerability to adverse health outcomes. It is estimated that 21% of the community-dwelling population over 65 years are frail. Frailty is independently predictive of falls, worsening mobility, deteriorating functioning, impaired activities of daily living, and death. The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) defines mobility as: changing and maintaining a body position, walking, and moving. Common interventions used to increase mobility include functional exercises, such as sit-to-stand, walking, or stepping practice.\nObjectives\nTo summarise the evidence for the benefits and safety of mobility training on overall functioning and mobility in frail older people living in the community.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PEDro, US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (June 2021).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of mobility training on mobility and function in frail people aged 65+ years living in the community. We defined community as those residing either at home or in places that do not provide rehabilitative services or residential health-related care, for example, retirement villages, sheltered housing, or hostels.\nData collection and analysis\nWe undertook an 'umbrella' comparison of all types of mobility training versus control.\nMain results\nThis review included 12 RCTs, with 1317 participants, carried out in 9 countries. The median number of participants in the trials was 97. The mean age of the included participants was 82 years. The majority of trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more items. All trials compared mobility training with a control intervention (defined as one that is not thought to improve mobility, such as general health education, social visits, very gentle exercise, or \"sham\" exercise not expected to impact on mobility).\nHigh-certainty evidence showed that mobility training improves the level of mobility upon completion of the intervention period. The mean mobility score was 4.69 in the control group, and with mobility training, this score improved by 1.00 point (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.51) on the Short Physical Performance Battery (on a scale of 0 to 12; higher scores indicate better mobility levels) (12 studies, 1151 participants). This is a clinically significant change (minimum clinically important difference: 0.5 points; absolute improvement of 8% (4% higher to 13% higher); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5 (95% CI 3.00 to 9.00)). This benefit was maintained at six months post-intervention.\nModerate-certainty evidence (downgraded for inconsistency) showed that mobility training likely improves the level of functioning upon completion of the intervention. The mean function score was 86.1 in the control group, and with mobility training, this score improved by 8.58 points (95% CI 3.00 to 14.30) on the Barthel Index (on a scale of 0 to 100; higher scores indicate better functioning levels) (9 studies, 916 participants) (absolute improvement of 9% (3% higher to 14% higher)). This result did not reach clinical significance (9.8 points). This benefit did not appear to be maintained six months after the intervention.\nWe are uncertain of the effect of mobility training on adverse events as we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low (downgraded one level for imprecision and two levels for bias). The number of events was 771 per 1000 in the control group and 562 per 1000 in the group with mobility training (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88; 2 studies, 225 participants) (absolute difference of 19% fewer (9% fewer to 26% fewer)).\nMobility training may result in little to no difference in the number of people who are admitted to nursing care facilities at the end of the intervention period as the 95% confidence interval includes the possibility of both a reduced and increased number of admissions to nursing care facilities (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for imprecision and bias). The number of events was 248 per 1000 in the control group and 208 per 1000 in the group with mobility training (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34; 1 study, 241 participants) (absolute difference of 4% fewer (8% more to 12% fewer)).\nMobility training may result in little to no difference in the number of people who fall as the 95% confidence interval includes the possibility of both a reduced and increased number of fallers (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for imprecision and study design limitations). The number of events was 573 per 1000 in the control group and 584 per 1000 in the group with mobility training (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; 2 studies, 425 participants) (absolute improvement of 1% (12% more to 7% fewer)).\nMobility training probably results in little to no difference in the death rate at the end of the intervention period as the 95% confidence interval includes the possibility of both a reduced and increased death rate (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded for bias). The number of events was 51 per 1000 in the control group and 59 per 1000 in the group with mobility training (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.10; 6 studies, 747 participants) (absolute improvement of 1% (6% more to 2% fewer)).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe data in the review supports the use of mobility training for improving mobility in a frail community-dwelling older population. High-certainty evidence shows that compared to control, mobility training improves the level of mobility, and moderate-certainty evidence shows it may improve the level of functioning in frail community-dwelling older people. There is moderate-certainty evidence that the improvement in mobility continues six months post-intervention. Mobility training may make little to no difference to the number of people who fall or are admitted to nursing care facilities, or to the death rate. We are unsure of the effect on adverse events as the certainty of evidence was very low.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "- Mobility improved by 8% (4% higher to 13% higher) upon completion of the training period (12 studies, 1151 participants). People with no mobility training scored 4.69 points (out of 12 on the Short Physical Performance Battery scale; a higher score indicates better mobility). People with mobility training scored 5.69 points.\n- Function improved by 9% (3% higher to 14% higher) upon completion of the training period (9 studies, 916 participants). People with no mobility training scored 86.1 points (out of 100 on the Barthel Index; a higher score indicates better functioning). People with mobility training scored 94.68 points.\n- Unwanted or harmful effects of the training decreased by 19% (9% fewer to 26% fewer) (2 studies, 225 participants). If 1000 people were followed over 1 year, 771 people with no mobility training would experience unwanted or harmful effects, whereas 562 people with mobility training would experience unwanted or harmful effects.\n- Admissions to nursing care facilities decreased by 4% (8% more to 12% fewer) (1 study, 241 participants). If 1000 people were followed over 1 year, 248 people with no mobility training would have an admission to a nursing care facility, whereas 208 people with mobility training would have an admission to a nursing care facility.\n- Falls increased by 1% (12% more to 7% fewer) (2 studies, 425 participants). If 1000 people were followed over 1 year, 573 people with no mobility training would have a fall, whereas 584 people with mobility training would have a fall.\n- Death rate increased by 1% (6% more to 2% fewer) (6 studies, 747 participants). If 1000 people were followed over 1 year, 51 people with no mobility training would die, whereas 59 people with mobility training would die." } ]
query-laysum	7363	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPediatric cervical spine injury (CSI) after blunt trauma is rare. Nonetheless, missing these injuries can have severe consequences. To prevent the overuse of radiographic imaging, two clinical decision tools have been developed: The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) criteria and the Canadian C-spine Rule (CCR). Both tools are proven to be accurate in deciding whether or not diagnostic imaging is needed in adults presenting for blunt trauma screening at the emergency department. However, little information is known about the accuracy of these triage tools in a pediatric population.\nObjectives\nTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of the NEXUS criteria and the Canadian C-spine Rule in a pediatric population evaluated for CSI following blunt trauma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases to 24 February 2015: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE Non-Indexed and In-Process Citations, PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment, and the Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all retrospective and prospective studies involving children following blunt trauma that evaluated the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria, the Canadian C-spine Rule, or both. Plain radiography, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine, and follow-up were considered as adequate reference standards.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the quality of included studies using the QUADAS-2 checklists. They extracted data on study design, patient characteristics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, clinical parameters, target condition, reference standard, and the diagnostic two-by-two table. We calculated and plotted sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value in ROC space, and constructed forest plots for visual examination of variation in test accuracy.\nMain results\nThree cohort studies were eligible for analysis, including 3380 patients ; 96 children were diagnosed with CSI. One study evaluated the accuracy of the Canadian C-spine Rule and the NEXUS criteria, and two studies evaluated the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria. The studies were of moderate quality. Due to the small number of included studies and the diverse outcomes of those studies, we could not describe a pooled estimate for the diagnostic test accuracy. The sensitivity of the NEXUS criteria of the individual studies was 0.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.90), 0.98 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.00). The specificity of the NEXUS criteria was 0.35 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.45), 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.62) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.21). For the Canadian C-spine Rule the sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.15 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.23). Since the quantity of the data was small we were not able to investigate heterogeneity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are currently few studies assessing the diagnostic test accuracy of the NEXUS criteria and CCR in children. At the moment, there is not enough evidence to determine the accuracy of the Canadian C-spine Rule to detect CSI in pediatric trauma patients following blunt trauma. The confidence interval of the sensitivity of the NEXUS criteria between the individual studies showed a wide range, with a lower limit varying from 0.18 to 0.91 with a total of four false negative test results, meaning that if physicians use the NEXUS criteria in children, there is a chance of missing CSI. Since missing CSI could have severe consequences with the risk of significant morbidity, we consider that the NEXUS criteria are at best a guide to clinical assessment, with current evidence not supporting strict or protocolized adoption of the tool into pediatric trauma care. Moreover, we have to keep in mind that the sensitivity differs among several studies, and individual confidence intervals of these studies show a wide range. Our main conclusion is therefore that additional well-designed studies with large sample sizes are required to better evaluate the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria or the Canadian C-spine Rule, or both, in order to determine whether they are appropriate triage tools for the clearance of the cervical spine in children following blunt trauma.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background and Rationale\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The cervical spine is the upper part of the spine between the head and shoulders (the neck). The incidence of traumatic cervical spine injury (CSI) in children is very low. However it is very important not to miss this type of injury. To detect CSI, several types of scan imaging techniques can be used (computed tomography (CT) scan, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and plain radiography (x-ray)). CT scan and x-ray use radiation that can lead to an increased risk in the development of cancer, especially in children. We therefore need to use plain radiography or CT scan in children only if really necessary. To avoid unnecessary use of those radiographic imaging techniques, it is important to look for clinical tests that can detect whether children are at risk for cervical spine injury and if radiographic imaging needs to be done." } ]
query-laysum	7364	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEdentulism is relatively common and is often treated with the provision of complete or partial removable dentures. Clinicians make final impressions of complete dentures (CD) and removable partial dentures (RPD) using different techniques and materials. Applying the correct impression technique and material, based on an individual's oral condition, improves the quality of the prosthesis, which may improve quality of life.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different final-impression techniques and materials used to make complete dentures, for retention, stability, comfort, and quality of life in completely edentulous people.\nTo assess the effects of different final-impression techniques and materials used to make removable partial dentures, for stability, comfort, overextension, and quality of life in partially edentulous people.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health’s Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health’s Trials Register (to 22 November 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Register of Studies, to 22 November 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 November 2017), and Embase Ovid (21 December 2015 to 22 November 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases, however the search of Embase was restricted by date due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different final-impression techniques and materials for treating people with complete dentures (CD) and removable partial dentures (RPD). For CD, we included trials that compared different materials or different techniques or both. In RPD for tooth-supported conditions, we included trials comparing the same material and different techniques, or different materials and the same technique. In tooth- and tissue-supported RPD, we included trials comparing the same material and different dual-impression techniques, and different materials with different dual-impression techniques.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently, and in duplicate, screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for each included trial. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using the random-effects model. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables for the main comparisons and outcomes (participant-reported oral health-related quality of life, quality of the denture, and denture border adjustments).\nMain results\nWe included nine studies in this review. Eight studies involved 485 participants with CD. We assessed six of the studies to be at high risk of bias, and two to be at low risk of bias. We judged one study on RPD with 72 randomised participants to be at high risk of bias.\nOverall, the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome was either low or very low, therefore, results should be interpreted with caution, as future research is likely to change the findings.\nComplete dentures\nTwo studies compared the same material and different techniques (one study contributed data to a secondary outcome only); two studies compared the same technique and different materials; and four studies compared different materials and techniques.\nOne study (10 participants) evaluated two stage–two step, Biofunctional Prosthetic system (BPS) using additional silicone elastomer compared to conventional methods, and found no evidence of a clear difference for oral health-related quality of life, or quality of the dentures (denture satisfaction). The study reported that BPS required fewer adjustments. We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.\nOne study (27 participants) compared selective pressure final-impression technique using wax versus polysulfide elastomeric (rubber) material. The study did not measure quality of life or dentures, and found no evidence of a clear difference between interventions in the need for adjustments (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.70). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.\nOne study compared two stage–two step final impression with alginate versus silicone elastomer. Oral health-related quality of life measured by the OHIP-EDENT seemed to be better with silicone (MD 7.20, 95% CI 2.71 to 11.69; 144 participants). The study found no clear differences in participant-reported quality of the denture (comfort) after a two-week 'confirmation' period, but reported that silicone was better for stability and chewing efficiency. We assessed the quality of the evidence as low.\nThree studies compared single-stage impressions with alginate versus two stage-two step with elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) impressions. There was no evidence of a clear difference in the OHIP-EDENT at one month (MD 0.05, 95% CI -2.37 to 2.47; two studies, 98 participants). There was no evidence of a clear difference in participant-rated general satisfaction with dentures at six months (MD 0.00, 95% CI -8.23 to 8.23; one study, 105 participants). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.\nOne study compared single-stage alginate versus two stage-two step using zinc-oxide eugenol, and found no evidence of a clear difference in OHIP-EDENT (MD 0.50, 95% CI -2.67 to 3.67; 39 participants), or general satisfaction (RR 3.15, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.88; 39 participants) at six months. We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.\nRemovable partial dentures\nOne study randomised 72 participants and compared altered-cast technique versus one-piece cast technique. The study did not measure quality of life, but reported that most participants were satisfied with the dentures and there was no evidence of any clear difference between groups for general satisfaction at one-year follow-up (low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a clear difference in number of intaglio adjustments at one year (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.34) (very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe conclude that there is no clear evidence that one technique or material has a substantial advantage over another for making complete dentures and removable partial dentures. Available evidence for the relative benefits of different denture fabrication techniques and final-impression materials is limited and is of low or very low quality. More high-quality RCTs are required.\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": "In this review, conducted through Cochrane Oral Health, our aim was to evaluate which technique and material should be used for the final impression when making complete and partial removable dentures, to increase the quality of the denture, and improve oral health-related quality of life for the individual." } ]
query-laysum	7365	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAdvance community distribution of misoprostol for preventing or treating postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) has become an attractive strategy to expand uterotonic coverage to places where conventional uterotonic use is not feasible. However, the value and safety of this strategy remain contentious. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of the strategy of advance misoprostol distribution to pregnant women for the prevention or treatment of PPH in non-facility births.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trial Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (19 December 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of advance misoprostol distribution to pregnant women compared with usual (or standard) care for the prevention or treatment of PPH in non-facility births. We excluded studies without any form of random design and those that were available in abstract form only.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nTwo studies conducted in rural Uganda met the inclusion criteria for this review. One was a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial (involving 2466 women) which assessed the effectiveness and safety of misoprostol distribution to pregnant women compared with standard care for PPH prevention during non-facility births. The other study (involving 748 women) was a pilot individually randomised placebo-controlled trial which assessed the logistics and feasibility of community antenatal distribution of misoprostol, as well as the effectiveness and safety of self-administration of misoprostol for PPH prevention. Only 271 (11%) of women in the cluster-randomised trial and 299 (40%) of the women in the individually randomised trial had non-facility births. Data from the two studies could not be meta-analysed as the data available from the stepped-wedge trial were not adjusted for the study design. Therefore, the analysed effects of advance misoprostol distribution on PPH prevention largely reflect the findings of the placebo-controlled trial. Neither of the included studies addressed advance misoprostol distribution for the treatment of PPH.\nPrimary outcomes\nSevere PPH was not reported in the studies. In both the intervention and standard care arms of the two studies, no cases of severe maternal morbidity or death were recorded among women who had a non-facility birth.\nSecondary outcomes\nCompared with standard care, it is uncertain whether advance misoprostol distribution has any effect on blood transfusion (no events, 1 study, 299 women), the number of women not using misoprostol (2% in the advance distribution group versus 4% in the usual care group; risk ratio (RR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 1.95, 1 study, 299 women), the number of women not using misoprostol correctly (RR 4.86, 95% CI 0.24 to 100.46, 1 study, 290 women), inappropriate use of misoprostol (RR 4.97, 95% CI 0.24 to 102.59, 1 study, 299 women) or maternal transfer or referral to a health facility (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.91, 1 study, 299 women). Compared with standard care, it is uncertain whether advance misoprostol provision increases the number of women experiencing minor adverse effects: shivering/chills (RR 1.84, CI 95% 1.35 to 2.50, 1 study, 299 women), fever (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.00, 1 study, 299 women), or diarrhoea (RR 3.92, 95% CI 0.44 to 34.64, 1 study, 299 women); major adverse effects: placenta retention (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.79, 1 study, 299 women) or hospital admission for longer than 24 hours (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 15.73, 1 study, 299 women) after non-facility birth. For all the outcomes included in the 'Summary of findings' table, we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low, according to GRADE criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhilst it might be considered reasonable and feasible to provide advance misoprostol to pregnant women where there are no suitable alternative options for the prevention or treatment of PPH, the evidence on the benefits and harms of this approach remains uncertain. Expansion of uterotonic coverage through this strategy should be cautiously implemented either in the context of rigorous research or with targeted monitoring and evaluation of its impact.\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 medications oxytocin and ergometrine are commonly used to help reduce blood loss in the first 24 hours after giving birth. These require a trained health professional to be present as they are given by injection immediately after the birth. They also need to be kept in the refrigerator to remain effective.\nMisoprostol is another medication that helps the womb to contract strongly after birth and reduce excess bleeding. It can be given by mouth and does not need refrigeration. This makes it easier to use than oxytocin and ergometrine, in parts of the world where refrigeration and trained health professionals are not readily available. The main side effects of misoprostol are generally self-limiting and do not require treatment with further medication." } ]
query-laysum	7366	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDespite considerable improvement in outcomes for preterm infants, rates of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remain high, affecting an estimated 33% of very low birthweight infants, with corresponding long-term respiratory and neurosensory issues. Systemic corticosteroids can address the inflammation underlying BPD, but the optimal regimen for prevention of this disease, balancing of the benefits with the potentially meaningful risks of systemic corticosteroids, continues to be a medical quandary.\nNumerous studies have shown that systemic corticosteroids, particularly dexamethasone and hydrocortisone, effectively treat or prevent BPD. However, concerning short and long-term side effects have been reported and the optimal approach to corticosteroid treatment remains unclear.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether differences in efficacy and safety exist between high-dose dexamethasone, moderate-dose dexamethasone, low-dose dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, and placebo in the prevention of BPD, death, the composite outcome of death or BPD, and other relevant morbidities, in preterm infants through a network meta-analysis, generating both pairwise comparisons between all treatments and rankings of the treatments.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library for all systematic reviews of systemic corticosteroids for the prevention of BPD and searched for completed and ongoing studies in the following databases in January 2023: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and clinical trial databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in preterm infants (< 37 weeks’ gestation) at risk for BPD that evaluated systemic corticosteroids (high-dose [≥ 4 mg/kg cumulative dose] dexamethasone, moderate-dose [≥ 2 to < 4 mg/kg] dexamethasone, low-dose [< 2 mg/kg] dexamethasone, or hydrocortisone) versus control or another systemic corticosteroid.\nData collection and analysis\nOur main information sources were the systematic reviews, with reference to the original manuscript only for data not included in these reviews. Teams of two paired review authors independently performed data extraction, with disagreements resolved by discussion. Data were entered into Review Manager 5 and exported to R software for network meta-analysis (NMA). NMA was performed using a frequentist model with random-effects. Two separate networks were constructed, one for early (< seven days) initiation of treatment and one for late (≥ seven days) treatment initiation, to reflect the different patient populations evaluated. We assessed the certainty of evidence derived from the NMA for our primary outcomes using principles of the GRADE framework modified for application to NMA.\nMain results\nWe included 59 studies, involving 6441 infants, in our analyses.\nOnly six of the included studies provided direct comparisons between any of the treatment (dexamethasone or hydrocortisone) groups, forcing network comparisons between treatments to rely heavily on indirect evidence through comparisons with placebo/no treatment groups. Thirty-one studies evaluated early corticosteroid treatment, 27 evaluated late corticosteroid treatment, and one study evaluated both early and late corticosteroid treatments.\nEarly treatment (prior to seven days after birth):\nBenefits:NMA for early treatment showed only moderate-dose dexamethasone to decrease the risk of BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) compared with control (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.80; moderate-certainty evidence), although the other dexamethasone dosing regimens may have similar effects compared with control (high-dose dexamethasone, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.01; low-certainty evidence; low-dose dexamethasone, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence). Other early treatment regimens may have little or no effect on the risk of death at 36 weeks' PMA. Only moderate-dose dexamethasone decreased the composite outcome of death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA compared with control (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98; moderate-certainty evidence).\nHarms: Low-dose dexamethasone increased the risk for cerebral palsy (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.28; moderate-certainty evidence) compared with control. Hydrocortisone may decrease the risk of major neurosensory disability versus low-dose dexamethasone (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.01; low-certainty evidence).\nLate treatment (at seven days or later after birth):\nBenefits: NMA for late treatment showed high-dose dexamethasone to decrease the risk of BPD both versus hydrocortisone (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.85; low-certainty evidence) and versus control (RR 0.72, CI 0.59 to 0.87; moderate-certainty evidence). The late treatment regimens evaluated may have little or no effect on the risk of death at 36 weeks' PMA. High-dose dexamethasone decreased risk for the composite outcome of death or BPD compared with all other treatments (control, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.80, high-certainty evidence; hydrocortisone, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.84, low-certainty evidence; low-dose dexamethasone, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.88, low-certainty evidence; moderate-dose dexamethasone, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.93, low-certainty evidence).\nHarms: No effect was observed for the outcomes of major neurosensory disability or cerebral palsy.\nThe evidence for the primary outcomes was of overall low certainty, with notable deductions for imprecision and heterogeneity across the networks.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhile early treatment with moderate-dose dexamethasone or late treatment with high-dose dexamethasone may lead to the best effects for survival without BPD, the certainty of the evidence is low. There is insufficient evidence to guide this therapy with regard to plausible adverse long-term outcomes. Further RCTs with direct comparisons between systemic corticosteroid treatments are needed to determine the optimal treatment approach, and these studies should be adequately powered to evaluate survival without major neurosensory disability.\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": "We searched for evidence through February 2022." } ]
query-laysum	7367	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSpinal anaesthesia has been implicated as one of the possible causes of neurological complications following surgical procedures. This painful condition, occurring during the immediate postoperative period, is termed transient neurological symptoms (TNS) and is typically observed after the use of spinal lidocaine. Alternatives to lidocaine that can provide high-quality anaesthesia without TNS development are needed. This review was originally published in 2005, and last updated in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo determine the frequency of TNS after spinal anaesthesia with lidocaine and compare it with other types of local anaesthetics by performing a meta-analysis for all pair-wise comparisons, and conducting network meta-analysis (NMA) to rank interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Elsevier Embase, and LILACS on 25 November 2018. We searched clinical trial registries and handsearched the reference lists of trials and review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing the frequency of TNS after spinal anaesthesia with lidocaine to other local anaesthetics. Studies had to have two or more arms that used distinct local anaesthetics (irrespective of the concentration and baricity of the solution) for spinal anaesthesia in preparation for surgery.\nWe included adults who received spinal anaesthesia and considered all pregnant participants as a subgroup. The follow-up period for TNS was at least 24 hours.\nData collection and analysis\nFour review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. Three review authors independently evaluated the quality of the relevant studies and extracted the data from the included studies. We performed meta-analysis for all pair-wise comparisons of local anaesthetics, as well as NMA.\nWe used an inverse variance weighting for summary statistics and a random-effects model as we expected methodological and clinical heterogeneity across the included studies resulting in varying effect sizes between studies of pair-wise comparisons. The NMA used all included studies based on a graph theoretical approach within a frequentist framework. Finally, we ranked the competing treatments by P scores.\nMain results\nThe analysis included 24 trials reporting on 2226 participants of whom 239 developed TNS. Two studies are awaiting classification and one is ongoing. Included studies mostly had unclear to high risk of bias.\nThe NMA included 24 studies and eight different local anaesthetics; the number of pair-wise comparisons was 32 and the number of different pair-wise comparisons was 11. This analysis showed that, compared to lidocaine, the risk ratio (RR) of TNS was lower for bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, prilocaine, procaine, and ropivacaine with RRs in the range of 0.10 to 0.23 while 2-chloroprocaine and mepivacaine did not differ in terms of RR of TNS development compared to lidocaine.\nPair-wise meta-analysis showed that compared with lidocaine, most local anaesthetics were associated with a reduced risk of TNS development (except 2-chloroprocaine and mepivacaine) (bupivacaine: RR 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.28; 12 studies; moderate-quality evidence; 2-chloroprocaine: RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.51; 2 studies; low-quality evidence; levobupivacaine: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.69; 2 studies; low-quality evidence; mepivacaine: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.18 to 5.82; 4 studies; very low-quality evidence; prilocaine: RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence; procaine: RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.52; 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence; ropivacaine: RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.78; 2 studies; low-quality evidence).\nWe were unable to perform any of our planned subgroup analyses due to the low number of TNS events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nResults from both NMA and pair-wise meta-analysis indicate that the risk of developing TNS after spinal anaesthesia is lower when bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, prilocaine, procaine, and ropivacaine are used compared to lidocaine. The use of 2-chloroprocaine and mepivacaine had a similar risk to lidocaine in terms of TNS development after spinal anaesthesia.\nPatients should be informed of TNS as a possible adverse effect of local anaesthesia with lidocaine and the choice of anaesthetic agent should be based on the specific clinical context and parameters such as the expected duration of the procedure and the quality of anaesthesia.\nDue to the very low- to moderate-quality evidence (GRADE), future research efforts in this field are required to assess alternatives to lidocaine that would be able to provide high-quality anaesthesia without TNS development. The two studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Mild pain in the lower back is a common complaint following spinal anaesthesia (where a local anaesthetic is injected into the spinal column rather than using general anaesthetic into the whole body). People may also experience headache and low blood pressure. TNS symptoms are different. They appear within a few hours up to 24 hours after spinal anaesthesia and may last up to two to five days.\nLidocaine (a local anaesthetic) continues to be used for spinal anaesthesia because of its unique short duration of action, intense blockade, quick recovery, and suitability for day-case surgery, but alternatives are needed.\nThis review was originally published in 2005 and previously updated in 2009." } ]
query-laysum	7368	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nWith the increased demand for whiter teeth, home-based bleaching products, either dentist-prescribed or over-the-counter products have been exponentially increasing in the past few decades. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects of home-based tooth whitening products with chemical bleaching action, dispensed by a dentist or over-the-counter.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 12 June 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library (searched 12 June 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 12 June 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 12 June 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (12 June 2018) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (12 June 2018) were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included in our review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involved adults who were 18 years and above, and compared dentist-dispensed or over-the-counter tooth whitening (bleaching) products with placebo or other comparable products.\nQuasi-randomised trials, combination of in-office and home-based treatments, and home-based products having physical removal of stains were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials. Two pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 71 trials in the review with 26 studies (1398 participants) comparing a bleaching agent to placebo and 51 studies (2382 participants) comparing a bleaching agent to another bleaching agent. Two studies were at low overall risk of bias; two at high overall risk of bias; and the remaining 67 at unclear overall risk of bias.\nThe bleaching agents (carbamide peroxide (CP) gel in tray, hydrogen peroxide (HP) gel in tray, HP strips, CP paint-on gel, HP paint-on gel, sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP) chewing gum, sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP) chewing gum, and HP mouthwash) at different concentrations with varying application times whitened teeth compared to placebo over a short time period (from 2 weeks to 6 months), however the certainty of the evidence is low to very low.\nIn trials comparing one bleaching agent to another, concentrations, application method and application times, and duration of use varied widely. Most of the comparisons were reported in single trials with small sample sizes and event rates and certainty of the evidence was assessed as low to very low. Therefore the evidence currently available is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions regarding the superiority of home-based bleaching compositions or any particular method of application or concentration or application time or duration of use.\nTooth sensitivity and oral irritation were the most common side effects which were more prevalent with higher concentrations of active agents though the effects were mild and transient. Tooth whitening did not have any effect on oral health-related quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low to very low-certainty evidence over short time periods to support the effectiveness of home-based chemically-induced bleaching methods compared to placebo for all the outcomes tested.\nWe were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of home-based bleaching compositions or any particular method of application or concentration or application time or duration of use, as the overall evidence generated was of very low certainty. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardising methods of application, concentrations, application times, and duration of treatment.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The bleaching agents whitened teeth compared to placebo over a short time period (from 2 weeks to 6 months), however the certainty of the evidence is low to very low.\nThe evidence currently available is insufficient to draw reliable conclusions regarding the superiority of home-based bleaching compositions or any particular method of application or concentration or application time or duration of use.\nThe most common adverse events were tooth sensitivity and oral irritation, which were reported with higher concentrations of active agents, although the effects were mild and transient.\nWell-planned randomised controlled trials need to be conducted by standardising methods of application, concentrations, application times and duration of treatment." } ]
query-laysum	7369	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe use of technology in healthcare settings is on the increase and may represent a cost-effective means of delivering rehabilitation. Reductions in treatment time, and delivery in the home, are also thought to be benefits of this approach. Children and adolescents with brain injury often experience deficits in memory and executive functioning that can negatively affect their school work, social lives, and future occupations. Effective interventions that can be delivered at home, without the need for high-cost clinical involvement, could provide a means to address a current lack of provision.\nWe have systematically reviewed studies examining the effects of technology-based interventions for the rehabilitation of deficits in memory and executive functioning in children and adolescents with acquired brain injury.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of technology-based interventions compared to placebo intervention, no treatment, or other types of intervention, on the executive functioning and memory of children and adolescents with acquired brain injury.\nSearch methods\nWe ran the search on the 30 September 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), EMBASE Classic + EMBASE (OvidSP), ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPSI-SSH), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), two other databases, and clinical trials registers. We also searched the internet, screened reference lists, and contacted authors of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing the use of a technological aid for the rehabilitation of children and adolescents with memory or executive-functioning deficits with placebo, no treatment, or another intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts identified by the search strategy. Following retrieval of full-text manuscripts, two review authors independently performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias.\nMain results\nFour studies (involving 206 participants) met the inclusion criteria for this review.\nThree studies, involving 194 participants, assessed the effects of online interventions to target executive functioning (that is monitoring and changing behaviour, problem solving, planning, etc.). These studies, which were all conducted by the same research team, compared online interventions against a 'placebo' (participants were given internet resources on brain injury). The interventions were delivered in the family home with additional support or training, or both, from a psychologist or doctoral student. The fourth study investigated the use of a computer program to target memory in addition to components of executive functioning (that is attention, organisation, and problem solving). No information on the study setting was provided, however a speech-language pathologist, teacher, or occupational therapist accompanied participants.\nTwo studies assessed adolescents and young adults with mild to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), while the remaining two studies assessed children and adolescents with moderate to severe TBI.\nRisk of bias\nWe assessed the risk of selection bias as low for three studies and unclear for one study. Allocation bias was high in two studies, unclear in one study, and low in one study. Only one study (n = 120) was able to conceal allocation from participants, therefore overall selection bias was assessed as high.\nOne study took steps to conceal assessors from allocation (low risk of detection bias), while the other three did not do so (high risk of detection bias).\nPrimary outcome 1: Executive functioning: Technology-based intervention versus placebo\nResults from meta-analysis of three studies (n = 194) comparing online interventions with a placebo for children and adolescents with TBI, favoured the intervention immediately post-treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.66 to -0.09; P = 0.62; I2 = 0%). (As there is no 'gold standard' measure in the field, we have not translated the SMD back to any particular scale.) This result is thought to represent only a small to medium effect size (using Cohen’s rule of thumb, where 0.2 is a small effect, 0.5 a medium one, and 0.8 or above is a large effect); this is unlikely to have a clinically important effect on the participant.\nThe fourth study (n = 12) reported differences between the intervention and control groups on problem solving (an important component of executive functioning). No means or standard deviations were presented for this outcome, therefore an effect size could not be calculated.\nThe quality of evidence for this outcome according to GRADE was very low. This means future research is highly likely to change the estimate of effect.\nPrimary outcome 2: Memory\nOne small study (n = 12) reported a statistically significant difference in improvement in sentence recall between the intervention and control group following an eight-week remediation programme. No means or standard deviations were presented for this outcome, therefore an effect size could not be calculated.\nSecondary outcomes\nTwo studies (n = 158) reported on anxiety/depression as measured by the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and were included in a meta-analysis. We found no evidence of an effect with the intervention (mean difference -5.59, 95% CI -11.46 to 0.28; I2 = 53%). The GRADE quality of evidence for this outcome was very low, meaning future research is likely to change the estimate of effect.\nA single study sought to record adverse events and reported none. Two studies reported on use of the intervention (range 0 to 13 and 1 to 24 sessions). One study reported on social functioning/social competence and found no effect. The included studies reported no data for other secondary outcomes (that is quality of life and academic achievement).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review provides low-quality evidence for the use of technology-based interventions in the rehabilitation of executive functions and memory for children and adolescents with TBI. As all of the included studies contained relatively small numbers of participants (12 to 120), our findings should be interpreted with caution. The involvement of a clinician or therapist, rather than use of the technology, may have led to the success of these interventions. Future research should seek to replicate these findings with larger samples, in other regions, using ecologically valid outcome measures, and reduced clinician involvement.\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": "Acquired brain injury is defined as any injury to the brain that occurs following birth and is the result of illness, medical conditions, or trauma. After acquired brain injury a person can experience difficulties with executive functions and memory. Executive functions are brain processes that involve planning and emotional control, which govern the ability to start and stop our actions. Memory processes allow us to store and recall information about our world. Executive functions also include an aspect of memory called working memory. Technology is increasingly being used to help children and adolescents recover from acquired brain injury. Technological aids used to rehabilitate memory and executive functions include pagers, smartphones, internet-based interventions, and voice recorders." } ]
query-laysum	7370	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute sinusitis is the inflammation and swelling of the nasal and paranasal mucous membranes and is a common reason for patients to seek primary care consultations. The related impairment of daily functioning and quality of life is attributable to symptoms such as facial pain and nasal congestion.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of systemic corticosteroids on clinical response rates and to determine adverse effects and relapse rates of systemic corticosteroids compared to placebo or standard clinical care in children and adults with acute sinusitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February week 1, 2014) and EMBASE (January 2009 to February 2014).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing systemic corticosteroids to placebo or standard clinical care for patients with acute sinusitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the trials and extracted data.\nMain results\nFive RCTs with a total of 1193 adult participants met our inclusion criteria. We judged methodological quality to be moderate in four trials and high in one trial. Acute sinusitis was defined clinically in all trials. However, the three trials performed in ear, nose and throat (ENT) outpatient clinics also used radiological assessment as part of their inclusion criteria. All participants were assigned to either oral corticosteroids (prednisone 24 mg to 80 mg daily or betamethasone 1 mg daily) or the control treatment (placebo in four trials and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in one trial). In four trials antibiotics were prescribed in addition to oral corticosteroids or control treatment, while one trial investigated the effects of oral corticosteroids as a monotherapy.\nWhen combining data from the five trials, participants treated with oral corticosteroids were more likely to have short-term resolution or improvement of symptoms than those receiving the control treatment: at days three to seven (risk ratio (RR) 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 1.6; risk difference (RD) 17%, 95% CI 6% to 29%) and at days four to 14 (RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.5; RD 14%, 95% CI 1% to 27%). A sensitivity analysis including the four trials with placebo as a control treatment showed similar results but with a lesser effect size: at days three to seven (RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.3; RD 11%, 95% CI 4% to 17%) and days four to 14 (RR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.2; RD 8%, 95% CI 2% to 13%). Statistical heterogeneity was high for many analyses. Subgroup analyses revealed that corticosteroid monotherapy had no beneficial effects. Furthermore, scenario analysis showed that outcomes missing from the trial reports might have introduced attrition bias (a worst-case scenario showed no statistically significant beneficial effect of oral corticosteroids). No trial reported effects on relapse or recurrence rates. Reported side effects in patients treated with oral corticosteroids were mild (nausea, vomiting, gastric complaints) and did not significantly differ from those receiving placebo.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOral corticosteroids as a monotherapy appear to be ineffective for adult patients with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis. Current data on the use of oral corticosteroids as an adjunctive therapy to oral antibiotics are limited: almost all trials are performed in secondary care settings and there is a significant risk of bias. This limited evidence suggests that oral corticosteroids in combination with antibiotics may be modestly beneficial for short-term relief of symptoms in acute sinusitis, with a number needed to treat to benefit of seven for resolution or symptom improvement. A large primary care factorial trial is needed to establish whether oral corticosteroids offer additional benefits over antibiotics in acute sinusitis.\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": "Acute sinusitis may be caused directly by viral or bacterial infections and by the body's inflammatory response to these infections. Therefore, anti-inflammatory treatments may be effective in treating this condition. Earlier reviews found only modest beneficial effects of corticosteroids given by nasal spray. It is unclear if this is because the intranasal corticosteroids did not actually reach the (blocked) nasal passages or because anti-inflammatory drugs do not work." } ]
query-laysum	7371	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has major short- and long-term implications for both the mother and her baby. GDM is defined as a carbohydrate intolerance resulting in hyperglycaemia or any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy from 24 weeks' gestation onwards and which resolves following the birth of the baby. Rates for GDM can be as high as 25% depending on the population and diagnostic criteria used, and overall rates are increasing globally. There is wide variation internationally in glycaemic treatment target recommendations for women with GDM that are based on consensus rather than high-quality trials.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of different intensities of glycaemic control in pregnant women with GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (26 September 2022), and reference lists of the retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs. Trials were eligible for inclusion if women were diagnosed with GDM during pregnancy and the trial compared tighter and less-tight glycaemic targets during management. We defined tighter glycaemic targets as lower numerical glycaemic concentrations, and less-tight glycaemic targets as higher numerical glycaemic concentrations.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods for carrying out data collection, assessing risk of bias, and analysing results. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility for inclusion, evaluated risk of bias, and extracted data for the four included studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for selected outcomes using the GRADE approach. Primary maternal outcomes included hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and subsequent development of type 2 diabetes. Primary infant outcomes included perinatal mortality, large-for-gestational-age, composite of mortality or serious morbidity, and neurosensory disability.\nMain results\nThis was an update of a previous review completed in 2016. We included four RCTs (reporting on 1731 women) that compared a tighter glycaemic control with less-tight glycaemic control in women diagnosed with GDM. Three studies were parallel RCTs, and one study was a stepped-wedged cluster-RCT. The trials took place in Canada, New Zealand, Russia, and the USA. We judged the overall risk of bias to be unclear. Two trials were only published in abstract form. Tight glycaemic targets used in the trials ranged between ≤ 5.0 and 5.1 mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose and ≤ 6.7 and 7.4 mmol/L postprandial. Less-tight targets for glycaemic control used in the included trials ranged between < 5.3 and 5.8 mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose and < 7.8 and 8.0 mmol/L postprandial.\nFor the maternal outcomes, compared with less-tight glycaemic control, the evidence suggests a possible increase in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with tighter glycaemic control (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.69, 2 trials, 1491 women; low certainty evidence); however, the 95% CI is compatible with a wide range of effects that encompass both benefit and harm. Tighter glycaemic control likely results in little to no difference in caesarean section rates (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17, 3 studies, 1662 women; moderate certainty evidence) or induction of labour rates (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.18, 1 study, 1096 women; moderate certainty evidence) compared with less-tight control. No data were reported for the outcomes of subsequent development of type 2 diabetes, perineal trauma, return to pre-pregnancy weight, and postnatal depression.\nFor the infant outcomes, it was difficult to determine if there was a difference in perinatal mortality (RR not estimable, 2 studies, 1499 infants; low certainty evidence), and there was likely no difference in being large-for-gestational-age (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29, 3 studies, 1556 infants; moderate certainty evidence). The evidence suggests a possible reduction in the composite of mortality or serious morbidity with tighter glycaemic control (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.29, 3 trials, 1559 infants; low certainty evidence); however, the 95% CI is compatible with a wide range of effects that encompass both benefit and harm. There is probably little difference between groups in infant hypoglycaemia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.18, 3 studies, 1556 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Tighter glycaemic control may not reduce adiposity in infants of women with GDM compared with less-tight control (mean difference −0.62%, 95% CI −3.23 to 1.99, 1 study, 60 infants; low certainty evidence), but the wide CI suggests significant uncertainty. We found no data for the long-term outcomes of diabetes or neurosensory disability.\nWomen assigned to tighter glycaemic control experienced an increase in the use of pharmacological therapy compared with women assigned to less-tight glycaemic control (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.59, 4 trials, 1718 women). Tighter glycaemic control reducedadherence with treatment compared with less-tight glycaemic control (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.51, 1 trial, 395 women).\nOverall the certainty of evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from low to moderate, downgraded primarily due to risk of bias and imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review is based on four trials (1731 women) with an overall unclear risk of bias. The trials provided data on most primary outcomes and suggest that tighter glycaemic control may increase the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. The risk of birth of a large-for-gestational-age infant and perinatal mortality may be similar between groups, and tighter glycaemic targets may result in a possible reduction in composite of death or severe infant morbidity. However, the CIs for these outcomes are wide, suggesting both benefit and harm.\nThere remains limited evidence regarding the benefit of different glycaemic targets for women with GDM to minimise adverse effects on maternal and infant health. Glycaemic target recommendations from international professional organisations vary widely and are currently reliant on consensus given the lack of high-certainty evidence.\nFurther high-quality trials are needed, and these should assess both short- and long-term health outcomes for women and their babies; include women's experiences; and assess health services costs in order to confirm the current findings. Two trials are ongoing.\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": "Up to a quarter of pregnant women develop gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), depending on their ethnicity and the diagnostic criteria used. GDM is defined as high blood sugar levels (hyperglycaemia) during pregnancy and is associated with an increased risk of developing high blood pressure (hypertension) and protein in the urine during pregnancy (pre-eclampsia). These women are more likely to have a caesarean birth and postnatal depression, and to develop type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease later in life. The high blood sugar levels that are associated with GDM usually return to normal after the birth, but women with GDM are at risk of developing GDM in future pregnancies. Babies whose mothers have been diagnosed with GDM are at an increased risk of having a birthweight greater than 4000 g, increased risk of birth trauma because of their size, and development of breathing difficulties after birth. These babies are also at higher risk of future obesity and type 2 diabetes." } ]
query-laysum	7372	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBronchiolitis is one of the most frequent causes of respiratory failure in infants; some infants will require intensive care and mechanical ventilation. There is lack of evidence regarding effective treatment for bronchiolitis other than supportive care. Abnormalities of surfactant quantity or quality (or both) have been observed in severe cases of bronchiolitis. Exogenous surfactant administration appears to favourably change the haemodynamics of the lungs and may be a potentially promising therapy for severe bronchiolitis. This is an update of a review published in Issue 9, 2012. We did not identify any new studies for inclusion, and our conclusions remain unchanged.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of exogenous surfactant administration (i.e. intratracheal administration of surfactant of any type (whether animal-derived or synthetic), at any dose and at any time after start of ventilation) compared to placebo, no intervention or standard care in reducing mortality and the duration of ventilation in infants and children with bronchiolitis requiring mechanical ventilation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Studies (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 5) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1948 to June week 3, 2015); EMBASE (1974 to June 2015); CINAHL (1982 to June 2015); LILACS (1985 to June 2015); and Web of Science (1985 to June 2015).\nSelection criteria\nWe considered prospective, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effect of exogenous surfactant in infants and children with bronchiolitis requiring mechanical ventilation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors selected studies independently. We extracted the data using a predefined proforma, independently analysed the data, and performed meta-analyses.\nMain results\nWe included three small RCTs enrolling 79 participants. Two trials did not use a placebo in the control arms and the third trial used air placebo. Two included studies reported no mortality. We judged all three of the included studies to be at low risk or unclear risk across all risk of bias categories; we did not judge any of the studies to be at high risk of bias in any category. Our pooled analysis of the three trials revealed that duration of mechanical ventilation was not significantly different between the groups (mean difference (MD) -63.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) -130.43 to 4.35 hours) but duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay was less in the surfactant group compared to the control group: MD -3.31, 95% CI -6.38 to -0.25 days. After excluding one trial which produced significant heterogeneity, the duration of mechanical ventilation and duration of ICU stay were significantly lower in the surfactant group compared to the control group: MD -28.99, 95% CI -40.10 to -17.87 hours; and MD -1.81, 95% CI -2.42 to -1.19 days, respectively. Use of surfactant had favourable effects on oxygenation and CO2 elimination. No adverse effects and no complications were observed in any of the three included studies. The level of evidence for duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of intensive care unit stay, oxygenation parameters, and carbon dioxide parameters was of moderate quality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nUse of surfactant had favourable effects on duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay, oxygenation, and CO2 elimination. However, the studies are few and small (n = 79) so available evidence is insufficient to establish the effectiveness of surfactant therapy for bronchiolitis in critically ill infants who require mechanical ventilation. There is a need for larger trials with adequate power and a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of exogenous surfactant therapy for infants with bronchiolitis who require intensive care management.\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": "Bronchiolitis (infection of small airways in the lungs) is one of the most common causes of respiratory failure in infants. There are no established treatment options for bronchiolitis. Surfactant may be useful in bronchiolitis because of its favourable effect on lung mechanics. We wanted to evaluate the efficacy of exogenous surfactant in reducing mortality and the duration of ventilation in infants and children with bronchiolitis, requiring mechanical ventilation." } ]
query-laysum	7373	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a previous Cochrane Review, last updated in 2014. Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer and seventh most common cause of death due to cancer in women worldwide. Traditionally, most women who have been treated for cancer undergo long-term follow-up in secondary care. However, it has been suggested that the use of routine review may not be effective in improving survival, or health-related quality of life (HRQOL), or relieving anxiety. In addition, traditional follow-up may not be cost-effective.\nObjectives\nTo compare the potential effects of different strategies of follow-up in women with epithelial ovarian cancer, following completion of primary treatment.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL 2022, Issue 11, MEDLINE, and Embase from August 2013 to November 2022. We also searched review articles and contacted experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated follow-up strategies for women with epithelial ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. They compared results, and resolved disagreements by discussion. We assessed the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the outcomes of interest: overall survival (OS), health-related quality of life (HRQOL), psychological effects, and cost analysis.\nMain results\nFor this update, we included one new RCT, including 112 women with ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer, who had completed primary treatment by surgery, with or without chemotherapy. This study reported the effect of individualised, i.e. individually tailored, nurse-led follow-up versus conventional medical follow-up on HRQOL, psychological outcomes, and cost-analysis.\nIndividualised follow-up improved HRQOL in one of the two scales, with a decrease in mean difference (MD) in the QLQ-C30 discomfort scale following 12 months of individualised treatment compared to 12 months of conventional treatment (MD -5.76 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.92 to -0.60; 1 study, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence; minimal important difference 4 to 10 points). There may be little or no difference in the other HRQOL scale (QLQ-Ov28, MD -0.97 points, 95% CI -2.57 to 0.63; 1 study, 112 participants: low-certainty evidence); psychological outcome, measured with the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS; MD 0.10 point, 95% CI -0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 112 participants: low-certainty evidence), or cost analysis (MD -GBP 695.00, 95% CI -1467.23 to 77.23; 1 study, 112 participants: moderate-certainty evidence).\nOur previous review included one RCT, with 529 women in a confirmed remission, with normal CA125 concentration and no radiological evidence of disease, after surgery and first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. This study evaluated immediate treatment of ovarian cancer relapse following a rise of serum CA125 levels versus delaying treatment until symptoms developed for OS, and HRQOL.\nThere was little or no difference in OS between the immediate and delayed arms after a median follow-up of 56.9 months (unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.20; 1 study, 529 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Time from randomisation to first deterioration in global health score or death was shorter in the immediate treatment group than in the delayed treatment group (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.88).\nAuthors' conclusions\nLimited evidence from one trial suggests that routine surveillance with CA125 in asymptomatic women and treatment at CA125-defined relapse does not seem to offer survival advantage when compared to treatment at symptomatic relapse. However, this study pre-dates the use of PARPi maintenance treatment and the increased use of secondary cytoreductive surgery, so the results may be limited in their applicability to current practice.\nLimited evidence from one trial suggests that individualised nurse-led follow-up may improve HRQOL in women with ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment.\nLarge RCTs are needed to compare different types of follow-up, looking at survival, HRQOL, psychological effects, and cost as 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": "There is limited evidence from these two trials regarding the appropriate follow-up for women with ovarian cancer. The certainty of the evidence ranges from low to moderate, due to risk of bias and imprecision. Also, these trials pre-date other studies that demonstrate a benefit to maintenance treatment (medicines to reduce tumour growth that are continued after routine chemotherapy is finished), and studies that demonstrate a benefit to further surgery at the time of relapse for some women with low volume disease, who may not be symptomatic. Whether the results of the follow-up studies would apply now, with these new treatment options available at relapse, is uncertain." } ]
query-laysum	7374	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSudden cardiac death (SCD) is one of the main causes of cardiac death. There are two main strategies to prevent it: managing cardiovascular risk factors and reducing the risk of ventricular arrhythmias. Implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) constitute the standard therapy for both primary and secondary prevention; however, they are not widely available in settings with limited resources. The antiarrhythmic amiodarone has been proposed as an alternative to ICD.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of amiodarone for primary or secondary prevention in SCD compared with placebo or no intervention or any other antiarrhythmic drugs in participants at high risk (primary prevention) or who have recovered from a cardiac arrest or a syncope due to Ventricular Tachycardia/Ventricular Fibrillation, or VT/VF (secondary prevention).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO) and LILACS on 26 March 2015. We reviewed reference lists of included studies and selected reviews on the topic, contacted authors of included studies, screened relevant meetings and searched in registers for ongoing trials. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised trials assessing the efficacy of amiodarone versus placebo, no intervention, or other antiarrhythmics in adults. For primary prevention we considered participants at high risk for SCD. For secondary prevention we considered participants recovered from cardiac arrest or syncope due to ventricular arrhythmias.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted relevant data. We contacted trial authors for missing data. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three studies included more than one comparison.\nMain results\nWe included 24 studies (9,997 participants). Eighteen studies evaluated amiodarone for primary prevention and six for secondary prevention. Only three studies used an ICD concomitantly with amiodarone for the comparison (all of them for secondary prevention).\nFor primary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (17 studies, 8383 participants) reduced SCD (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88), cardiac mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.96) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00). The quality of the evidence was low.\nCompared to other antiarrhythmics (three studies, 540 participants), amiodarone reduced SCD (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.00), cardiac mortality (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.86) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76). The quality of the evidence was moderate.\nFor secondary prevention, amiodarone compared to placebo or no intervention (two studies, 440 participants) appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 4.32; 95% CI 0.87 to 21.49) and all-cause mortality (RR 3.05; 1.33 to 7.01). However, the quality of the evidence was very low. Compared to other antiarrhythmics (four studies, 839 participants) amiodarone appeared to increase the risk of SCD (RR 1.40; 95% CI 0.56 to 3.52; very low quality of evidence), but there was no effect in all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.42; low quality evidence).\nAmiodarone was associated with an increase in pulmonary and thyroid adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low to moderate quality evidence that amiodarone reduces SCD, cardiac and all-cause mortality when compared to placebo or no intervention for primary prevention, and its effects are superior to other antiarrhythmics.\nIt is uncertain if amiodarone reduces or increases SCD and mortality for secondary prevention because the quality of the evidence was very low.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found 24 studies comprising 9,997 participants. In participants at high risk, the evidence showed that amiodarone may prevent SCD or mortality when compared to placebo, and it is probably better than other antiarrhythmics.\nOn the other hand, in participants who have already suffered a prior cardiac arrest, it is uncertain whether amiodarone increases or reduces the risk of a new episode of cardiac arrest or death.\nFurthermore, amiodarone may lead to or worsen adverse effects in the thyroid or lungs, when compared with placebo or other antiarrhythmics." } ]
query-laysum	7375	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBone is the most common site of metastatic disease associated with breast cancer (BC). Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, and novel targeted therapies such as denosumab inhibit other key bone metabolism pathways. We have studied these agents in both early breast cancer and advanced breast cancer settings. This is an update of the review originally published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2005 and 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of bisphosphonates and other bone agents in addition to anti-cancer treatment: (i) in women with early breast cancer (EBC); (ii) in women with advanced breast cancer without bone metastases (ABC); and (iii) in women with metastatic breast cancer and bone metastases (BCBM).\nSearch methods\nIn this review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 19 September 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: (a) one treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent with the same treatment without a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent; (b) treatment with one bisphosphonate versus treatment with a different bisphosphonate; (c) treatment with a bisphosphonate versus another bone-acting agent of a different mechanism of action (e.g. denosumab); and (d) immediate treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent versus delayed treatment of the same bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was bone metastases for EBC and ABC, and a skeletal-related event (SRE) for BCBM. We derived risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and the meta-analyses used random-effects models. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and disease-free survival for EBC; we derived hazard ratios (HRs) for these time-to-event outcomes where possible. We collected toxicity and quality-of-life information. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes in each treatment setting.\nMain results\nWe included 44 RCTs involving 37,302 women.\nIn women with EBC, bisphosphonates were associated with a reduced risk of bone metastases compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate (RR 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03, 11 studies; 15,005 women; moderate-quality evidence with no significant heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates provided an overall survival benefit with time-to-event data (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; P = 0.04; 9 studies; 13,949 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity). Subgroup analysis by menopausal status showed a survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.90; P = 0.001; 4 studies; 6048 women; high-quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity) but no survival benefit for premenopausal women (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22; P = 0.78; 2 studies; 3501 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). There was evidence of no effect of bisphosphonates on disease-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% 0.87 to 1.02; P = 0.13; 7 studies; 12,578 women; high-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity present) however subgroup analyses showed a disease-free survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women only (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 8314 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates did not significantly reduce the incidence of fractures when compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08, P = 0.13, 6 studies, 7602 women; moderate-quality evidence due to wide confidence intervals). We await mature overall survival and disease-free survival results for denosumab trials.\nIn women with ABC without clinically evident bone metastases, there was no evidence of an effect of bisphosphonates on bone metastases (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43; P = 0.86; 3 studies; 330 women; moderate-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) or overall survival (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; P = 0.28; 3 studies; 330 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates however the confidence intervals were wide. One study reported a trend towards an extended period of time without a SRE with bisphosphonate compared to placebo (low-quality evidence). One study reported quality of life and there was no apparent difference in scores between bisphosphonate and placebo (moderate-quality evidence).\nIn women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduced the SRE risk by 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95; P = 0.003; 9 studies; 2810 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity) compared with placebo/no bisphosphonates. This benefit persisted when administering either intravenous or oral bisphosphonates versus placebo. Bisphosphonates delayed the median time to a SRE with a median ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.58; P < 0.00001; 9 studies; 2891 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) and reduced bone pain (in 6 out of 11 studies; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate. Treatment with bisphosphonates did not appear to affect overall survival (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; P = 0.85; 7 studies; 1935 women; moderate-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity). Quality-of-life scores were slightly better with bisphosphonates than placebo at comparable time points (in three out of five studies; moderate-quality evidence) however scores decreased during the course of the studies. Denosumab reduced the risk of developing a SRE compared with bisphosphonates by 22% (RR 0.78, 0.72 to 0.85; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2345 women). One study reported data on overall survival and observed no difference in survival between denosumab and bisphosphonate.\nReported toxicities across all settings were generally mild. Osteonecrosis of the jaw was rare, occurring less than 0.5% in the adjuvant setting (high-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor women with EBC, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of bone metastases and provide an overall survival benefit compared to placebo or no bisphosphonates. There is preliminary evidence suggestive that bisphosphonates provide an overall survival and disease-free survival benefit in postmenopausal women only when compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate. This was not a planned subgroup for these early trials, and we await the completion of new large clinical trials assessing benefit for postmenopausal women. For women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of developing SREs, delay the median time to an SRE, and appear to reduce bone pain compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study results for women with advanced breast cancer (ABC)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "For women with ABC that had not spread to the bone, we included three studies enrolling 330 participants. All three studies compared oral bisphosphonates to no treatment.\nBisphosphonates did not reduce the risk of cancer spreading to the bone or improve survival. Very little information was available on complications and quality of life from only one study." } ]
query-laysum	7376	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the descent of a woman's uterus, bladder, or rectum into the vagina. It affects 50% of women over 50 years old who have given birth to at least one child, and recognised risk factors are older age, higher number of births, and higher body mass index. This review assesses the effects of oestrogen therapy, alone or in combination with other treatments, on POP in postmenopausal women.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of local and systemic oestrogen therapy in the management of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms in postmenopausal women, and to summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (up to 20 June 2022), which includes CENTRAL, MEDLINE, two trials registers, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings. We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, multi-arm RCTs, and cross-over RCTs that evaluated the effects of oestrogen therapy (alone or in combination with other treatments) versus placebo, no treatment, or other interventions in postmenopausal women with any grade of POP.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from the included trials using prespecified outcome measures and a piloted extraction form. The same review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Had data allowed, we would have created summary of findings tables for our main outcome measures and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified 14 studies including a total of 1002 women. In general, studies were at high risk of bias in terms of blinding of participants and personnel, and there were also some concerns about selective reporting. Owing to insufficient data for the outcomes of interest, we were unable to perform our planned subgroup analyses (systemic versus topical oestrogen, parous versus nulliparous women, women with versus without a uterus).\nNo studies assessed the effects of oestrogen therapy alone versus no treatment, placebo, pelvic floor muscle training, devices such as vaginal pessaries, or surgery. However, we did identify three studies that assessed oestrogen therapy in conjunction with vaginal pessaries versus vaginal pessaries alone and 11 studies that assessed oestrogen therapy in conjunction with surgery versus surgery alone.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was insufficient evidence from RCTs to draw any solid conclusions on the benefits or harms of oestrogen therapy for managing POP symptoms in postmenopausal women. Topical oestrogen in conjunction with pessaries was associated with fewer adverse vaginal events compared with pessaries alone, and topical oestrogen in conjunction with surgery was associated with reduced postoperative urinary tract infections compared with surgery alone; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as the studies that contributed data varied substantially in their design.\nThere is a need for larger studies on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oestrogen therapy, used alone or in conjunction with pelvic floor muscle training, vaginal pessaries, or surgery, for the management of POP. These studies should measure outcomes in the medium and long term.\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": "The evidence is very uncertain because of concerns about the studies' methods. The women were often aware of the treatments they were receiving, which may have affected the results. Additionally, many studies included few women." } ]

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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