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	7377	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.\nObjectives\nTo assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.\nSearch methods\nThe COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) ‘COVID-19: Living map of the evidence’ and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health ’NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence’. We did not apply language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).\nData collection and analysis\nWe use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.\nMain results\nWe included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%).\nRisk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies.\nAverage sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot.\nAverage specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies).\nSubgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection.\nInvestigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity.\nIn a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection.\nIn a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSome antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus that spreads easily between people in a similar way to the common cold or ‘flu’. Most people with COVID-19 have a mild-to-moderate respiratory illness, and some may have no symptoms (asymptomatic infection). Others experience severe symptoms and need specialist treatment and intensive care.\nIn response to COVID-19 infection, the immune system develops proteins called antibodies that can attack the virus as it circulates in their blood. People who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 also produce these antibodies against the virus. Tests are available to detect antibodies in peoples' blood, which may indicate that they currently have COVID-19 or have had it previously, or it may indicate that they have been vaccinated (although this group was not the focus of this review)." } ]
query-laysum	7378	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGood unaided distance visual acuity (VA) is now a realistic expectation following cataract surgery and intraocular lens (IOL) implantation. Near vision, however, still requires additional refractive power, usually in the form of reading glasses. Multiple optic (multifocal) IOLs are available which claim to allow good vision at a range of distances. It is unclear whether this benefit outweighs the optical compromises inherent in multifocal IOLs.\nObjectives\nTo assess the visual effects of multifocal IOLs in comparison with the current standard treatment of monofocal lens implantation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to June 2016), Embase (January 1980 to June 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 13 June 2016.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials comparing a multifocal IOL of any type with a monofocal IOL as control were included. Both unilateral and bilateral implantation trials were included. We also considered trials comparing multifocal IOLs with \"monovision\" whereby one eye is corrected for distance vision and one eye corrected for near vision.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the 'certainty' of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe found 20 eligible trials that enrolled 2230 people with data available on 2061 people (3194 eyes). These trials were conducted in Europe (13), China (three), USA (one), Middle East (one), India (one) and one multicentre study in Europe and the USA. Most of these trials compared multifocal with monofocal lenses; two trials compared multifocal lenses with monovision. There was considerable variety in the make and model of lenses implanted. Overall we considered the trials at risk of performance and detection bias because it was difficult to mask participants and outcome assessors. It was also difficult to assess the role of reporting bias.\nThere was moderate-certainty evidence that the distance acuity achieved with multifocal lenses was not different to that achieved with monofocal lenses (unaided VA worse than 6/6: pooled RR 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.03; eyes = 682; studies = 8). People receiving multifocal lenses may achieve better near vision (RR for unaided near VA worse than J3/J4 was 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.58; eyes = 782; studies = 8). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias in the included studies and high heterogeneity (I2 = 93%) although all included studies favoured multifocal lenses with respect to this outcome.\nPeople receiving multifocal lenses may be less spectacle dependent (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73; eyes = 1000; studies = 10). We judged this to be low-certainty evidence because of risk of bias and evidence of publication bias (skewed funnel plot). There was also high heterogeneity (I2 = 67%) but all studies favoured multifocal lenses. We did not additionally downgrade for this.\nAdverse subjective visual phenomena were more prevalent and more troublesome in participants with a multifocal IOL compared with monofocals (RR for glare 1.41, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.93; eyes = 544; studies = 7, low-certainty evidence and RR for haloes 3.58, 95% CI 1.99 to 6.46; eyes = 662; studies = 7; moderate-certainty evidence).\nTwo studies compared multifocal lenses with monovision. There was no evidence for any important differences in distance VA between the groups (mean difference (MD) 0.02 logMAR, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06; eyes = 186; studies = 1), unaided intermediate VA (MD 0.07 logMAR, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.10; eyes = 181; studies = 1) and unaided near VA (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; eyes = 186; studies = 1) compared with people receiving monovision. People receiving multifocal lenses were less likely to be spectacle dependent (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.53; eyes = 262; studies = 2) but more likely to report problems with glare (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.73; eyes = 187; studies = 1) compared with people receiving monovision. In one study, the investigators noted that more people in the multifocal group underwent IOL exchange in the first year after surgery (6 participants with multifocal vs 0 participants with monovision).\nAuthors' conclusions\nMultifocal IOLs are effective at improving near vision relative to monofocal IOLs although there is uncertainty as to the size of the effect. Whether that improvement outweighs the adverse effects of multifocal IOLs, such as glare and haloes, will vary between people. Motivation to achieve spectacle independence is likely to be the deciding factor.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The Cochrane researchers found 20 relevant studies that were mainly conducted in Europe and North America (15 studies); three studies were conducted in China and one study each in the Middle East and India. Eighteen studies compared multifocal with monofocal lenses and two studies compared multifocal lenses with monovision.\nThe Cochrane researchers assessed how certain the evidence is for each review finding. They looked for factors that can make the evidence less certain, such as problems with the way the studies were done, very small studies, and inconsistent findings across studies. They also looked for factors that can make the evidence more certain, including very large effects. They graded each finding as very low, low, moderate or high certainty\nThe review shows that:\n• People with multifocal lenses probably have distance vision that is not very different to the distance vision of people who have standard monofocal lenses after cataract extraction (moderate-certainty evidence). However, people with multifocal lenses may have better near vision and may be less likely to need spectacles compared with people with monofocal lenses (low-certainty evidence).\n• People who have multifocal lenses may be more likely to experience haloes and glare compared with people who have monofocal lenses (low-certainty evidence).\n• People receiving multifocal lenses had similar distance vision and near vision compared with people receiving monovision but reported less spectacle dependence. People with multifocal lenses reported more problems with glare and haloes compared with people with monovision." } ]
query-laysum	7379	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAnaemia affects about a quarter of the world's population. An estimated 50% of anaemic people have anaemia due to iron deficiency.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and efficacy of iron therapies for the treatment of adults with anaemia who are not pregnant or lactating and do not have chronic kidney disease.\nSearch methods\nWe ran the search on 11 July 2013. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid SP), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus (EBSCO Host), the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science (ISI WOS) Scientific Citation Index (SCI)-EXPANDED (1970) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI)-Science (1990) and Clinicaltrials.gov; we also screened reference lists. An updated search was run on 24 November 2014 but the results have not yet been incorporated into the review.\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors independently selected references for further assessment by going through all titles and abstracts. Further selection was based on review of full-text articles for selected references.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted study data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) or the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We performed meta-analysis when possible, when I2 was less than or equal to 80% using a fixed-effect or random-effects model, using Review Manager software. The range of point estimates for individual studies is presented when I2 > 80%.\nMain results\nWe included in this systematic review 4745 participants who were randomly assigned in 21 trials. Trials were conducted in a wide variety of clinical settings. Most trials included participants with mild to moderate anaemia and excluded participants who were allergic to iron therapy. All trials were at high risk of bias for one or more domains. We compared both oral iron and parenteral iron versus inactive controls and compared different iron preparations.\nThe comparison between oral iron and inactive control revealed no evidence of clinical benefit in terms of mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.61; four studies, N = 659; very low-quality evidence). The point estimate of the mean difference in haemoglobin levels in individual studies ranged from 0.3 to 3.1 g/dL higher in the oral iron group than in the inactive control group. The proportion of participants who required blood transfusion was lower with oral iron than with inactive control (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; three studies, N = 546; very low-quality evidence). Evidence was inadequate for determination of the effect of parenteral iron on mortality versus oral iron (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.94; 10 studies, N = 2141; very low-quality evidence) or inactive control (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.69; six studies, N = 1009; very low-quality evidence). Haemoglobin levels were higher with parenteral iron than with oral iron (MD -0.50 g/dL, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.27; six studies, N = 769; very low-quality evidence). The point estimate of the mean difference in haemoglobin levels in individual studies ranged between 0.3 and 3.0 g/dL higher in the parenteral iron group than in the inactive control group. Differences in the proportion of participants requiring blood transfusion between parenteral iron and oral iron groups (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.58; two studies, N = 371; very low-quality evidence) or between parenteral iron groups and inactive controls (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06; eight studies, N = 1315; very low-quality evidence) were imprecise. Average blood volume transfused was less in the parenteral iron group than in the oral iron group (MD -0.54 units, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.12; very low-quality evidence) based on one study involving 44 people. Differences between therapies in quality of life or in the proportion of participants with serious adverse events were imprecise (very low-quality evidence). No trials reported severe allergic reactions due to parenteral iron, suggesting that these are rare. Adverse effects related to oral iron treatment included nausea, diarrhoea and constipation; most were mild.\nComparisons of one iron preparation over another for mortality, haemoglobin or serious adverse events were imprecise. No information was available on quality of life. Thus, little evidence was found to support the use of one preparation or regimen over another.\nSubgroup analyses did not reveal consistent results; therefore we were unable to determine whether iron is useful in specific clinical situations, or whether iron therapy might be useful for people who are receiving erythropoietin.\nAuthors' conclusions\n• Very low-quality evidence suggests that oral iron might decrease the proportion of people who require blood transfusion, and no evidence indicates that it decreases mortality. Oral iron might be useful in adults who can tolerate the adverse events, which are usually mild.\n• Very low-quality evidence suggests that intravenous iron results in a modest increase in haemoglobin levels compared with oral iron or inactive control without clinical benefit.\n• No evidence can be found to show any advantage of one iron preparation or regimen over another.\n• Additional randomised controlled trials with low risk of bias and powered to measure clinically useful outcomes such as mortality, quality of life and blood transfusion requirements are needed.\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 4745 participants from 21 trials who received iron injections, iron tablets or no treatment. Clinical settings of these trials included loss of blood, cancer, anaemia before surgery for various reasons and heart failure, among others. Most trials included participants with mild to moderate anaemia and excluded participants who were allergic to iron therapy." } ]
query-laysum	7380	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOvarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is a potentially serious complication of ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction technology (ART). It is characterised by enlarged ovaries and an acute fluid shift from the intravascular space to the third space, resulting in bloating, increased risk of venous thromboembolism, and decreased organ perfusion. Most cases are mild, but forms of moderate or severe OHSS appear in 3% to 8% of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles. Dopamine agonists were introduced as a secondary prevention intervention for OHSS in women at high risk of OHSS undergoing ART treatment.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of dopamine agonists in preventing OHSS in women at high risk of developing OHSS when undergoing ART treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases from inception to 4 May 2020: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of dopamine agonists on OHSS rates. We also handsearched reference lists and grey literature.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered RCTs for inclusion that compared dopamine agonists with placebo/no intervention or another intervention for preventing OHSS in ART. Primary outcome measures were incidence of moderate or severe OHSS and live birth rate. Secondary outcomes were rates of clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of publications; selected studies; extracted data; and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus. We reported pooled results as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) by the Mantel-Haenszel method. We applied GRADE criteria to judge overall quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nThe search identified six new RCTs, resulting in 22 included RCTs involving 3171 women at high risk of OHSS for this updated review. The dopamine agonists were cabergoline, quinagolide, and bromocriptine.\nDopamine agonists versus placebo or no intervention\nDopamine agonists probably lowered the risk of moderate or severe OHSS compared to placebo/no intervention (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.44; 10 studies, 1202 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the risk of moderate or severe OHSS following placebo/no intervention is assumed to be 27%, the risk following dopamine agonists would be between 8% and 14%. We are uncertain of the effect of dopamine agonists on rates of live birth (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.55; 3 studies, 362 participants; low-quality evidence). We are also uncertain of the effect of dopamine agonists on clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage or adverse events (very low to low-quality evidence).\nDopamine agonists plus co-intervention versus co-intervention\nDopamine agonist plus co-intervention (hydroxyethyl starch, human albumin, or withholding ovarian stimulation 'coasting') may decrease the risk of moderate or severe OHSS compared to co-intervention (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.84; 4 studies, 748 participants; low-quality evidence). Dopamine agonists may improve rates of live birth (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.80; 2 studies, 400 participants; low-quality evidence). Dopamine agonists may improve rates of clinical pregnancy and miscarriage, but we are uncertain if they improve rates of multiple pregnancy or adverse events (very low to low-quality evidence).\nDopamine agonists versus other active interventions\nWe are uncertain if cabergoline improves the risk of moderate or severe OHSS compared to human albumin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.38; 3 studies, 296 participants; very low-quality evidence), prednisolone (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.33; 1 study; 150 participants; very low-quality evidence), hydroxyethyl starch (OR 2.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 15.10; 1 study, 61 participants; very low-quality evidence), coasting (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.95; 3 studies, 320 participants; very low-quality evidence), calcium infusion (OR 1.83, 95% CI 0.88 to 3.81; I² = 81%; 2 studies, 400 participants; very low-quality evidence), or diosmin (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.35 to 6.00; 1 study, 200 participants; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of dopamine agonists on rates of live birth (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.59; 2 studies, 430 participants; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of dopamine agonists on clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy or miscarriage (low to moderate-quality evidence). There were no adverse events reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDopamine agonists probably reduce the incidence of moderate or severe OHSS compared to placebo/no intervention, while we are uncertain of the effect on adverse events and pregnancy outcomes (live birth, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage). Dopamine agonists plus co-intervention may decrease moderate or severe OHSS rates compared to co-intervention only, but we are uncertain whether dopamine agonists affect pregnancy outcomes. When compared to other active interventions, we are uncertain of the effects of dopamine agonists on moderate or severe OHSS and pregnancy outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \".\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "." } ]
query-laysum	7381	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPressure ulcers, also known as bedsores, decubitus ulcers and pressure injuries, are localised areas of injury to the skin or the underlying tissue, or both. Dressings are widely used to treat pressure ulcers and promote healing, and there are many options to choose from including alginate, hydrocolloid and protease-modulating dressings. Topical agents have also been used as alternatives to dressings in order to promote healing.\nA clear and current overview of all the evidence is required to facilitate decision-making regarding the use of dressings or topical agents for the treatment of pressure ulcers. Such a review would ideally help people with pressure ulcers and health professionals assess the best treatment options. This review is a network meta-analysis (NMA) which assesses the probability of complete ulcer healing associated with alternative dressings and topical agents.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of dressings and topical agents for healing pressure ulcers in any care setting. We aimed to examine this evidence base as a whole, determining probabilities that each treatment is the best, with full assessment of uncertainty and evidence quality.\nSearch methods\nIn July 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds 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 Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nPublished or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of at least one of the following interventions with any other intervention in the treatment of pressure ulcers (Stage 2 or above): any dressing, or any topical agent applied directly to an open pressure ulcer and left in situ. We excluded from this review dressings attached to external devices such as negative pressure wound therapies, skin grafts, growth factor treatments, platelet gels and larval therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. We conducted network meta-analysis using frequentist mega-regression methods for the efficacy outcome, probability of complete healing. We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (saline gauze). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within dressings classes (e.g. hydrocolloid, foam). We present estimates of effect with their 95% confidence intervals for individual treatments compared with every other, and we report ranking probabilities for each intervention (probability of being the best, second best, etc treatment). We assessed the certainty (quality) of the body of evidence using GRADE for each network comparison and for the network as whole.\nMain results\nWe included 51 studies (2947 participants) in this review and carried out NMA in a network of linked interventions for the sole outcome of probability of complete healing. The network included 21 different interventions (13 dressings, 6 topical agents and 2 supplementary linking interventions) and was informed by 39 studies in 2127 participants, of whom 783 had completely healed wounds.\nWe judged the network to be sparse: overall, there were relatively few participants, with few events, both for the number of interventions and the number of mixed treatment contrasts; most studies were small or very small. The consequence of this sparseness is high imprecision in the evidence, and this, coupled with the (mainly) high risk of bias in the studies informing the network, means that we judged the vast majority of the evidence to be of low or very low certainty. We have no confidence in the findings regarding the rank order of interventions in this review (very low-certainty evidence), but we report here a summary of results for some comparisons of interventions compared with saline gauze. We present here only the findings from evidence which we did not consider to be very low certainty, but these reported results should still be interpreted in the context of the very low certainty of the network as a whole.\nIt is not clear whether regimens involving protease-modulating dressings increase the probability of pressure ulcer healing compared with saline gauze (risk ratio (RR) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 2.94) (moderate-certainty evidence: low risk of bias, downgraded for imprecision). This risk ratio of 1.65 corresponds to an absolute difference of 102 more people healed with protease modulating dressings per 1000 people treated than with saline gauze alone (95% CI 13 fewer to 302 more). It is unclear whether the following interventions increase the probability of healing compared with saline gauze (low-certainty evidence): collagenase ointment (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.22); foam dressings (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.26); basic wound contact dressings (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.58) and polyvinylpyrrolidone plus zinc oxide (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.37 to 4.62); the latter two interventions both had confidence intervals consistent with both a clinically important benefit and a clinically important harm, and the former two interventions each had high risk of bias as well as imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nA network meta-analysis (NMA) of data from 39 studies (evaluating 21 dressings and topical agents for pressure ulcers) is sparse and the evidence is of low or very low certainty (due mainly to risk of bias and imprecision). Consequently we are unable to determine which dressings or topical agents are the most likely to heal pressure ulcers, and it is generally unclear whether the treatments examined are more effective than saline gauze.\nMore research is needed to determine whether particular dressings or topical agents improve the probability of healing of pressure ulcers. The NMA is uninformative regarding which interventions might best be included in a large trial, and it may be that research is directed towards prevention, leaving clinicians to decide which treatment to use on the basis of wound symptoms, clinical experience, patient preference and cost.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "" } ]
query-laysum	7382	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nA dissection of the aorta is a separation or tear of the intima from the media. This tear allows blood to flow not only through the original aortic flow channel (known as the true lumen), but also through a second channel between the intima and media (known as the false lumen). Aortic dissection is a life-threatening condition which can be rapidly fatal. There is debate on the optimal surgical approach for aortic arch dissection. People with ascending aortic dissection have poor rates of survival. Currently open surgical repair is regarded as the standard treatment for aortic arch dissection. We intend to review the role of hybrid and open repair in aortic arch dissection.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of a hybrid technique of treatment over conventional open repair in the management of aortic arch dissection.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 8 February 2021. We also undertook reference checking for additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs), which compared the effects of hybrid repair techniques versus open surgical repair of aortic arch dissection. Outcomes of interest were dissection-related mortality and all-cause mortality, neurological deficit, cardiac injury, respiratory compromise, renal ischaemia, false lumen thrombosis (defined by partial or complete thrombosis) and mesenteric ischaemia.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all records identified by the literature searches to identify those that met our inclusion criteria. We planned to undertake data collection and analysis in accordance with recommendations described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified one ongoing study and two unpublished studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review. Due to a lack of study data, we could not compare the outcomes of hybrid repair to conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review revealed one ongoing RCT and two unpublished RCTs evaluating hybrid versus conventional open repair for aortic arch surgery. Observational data suggest that hybrid repair for aortic arch dissection could potentially be favourable, but conclusions can not be drawn from these studies, which are highly selective, and are based on the clinical status of the patient, the presence of comorbidities and the skills of the operators. However, a conclusion about its definitive benefit over conventional open surgical repair cannot be made from this review without published RCTs or CCTs.\nFuture RCTs or CCTs need to have adequate sample sizes and follow-up, and assess clinically-relevant outcomes, in order to determine the optimal treatment for people with aortic arch dissection. It must be noted that this may not be feasible, due to the reasons mentioned.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusion\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There is an absence of data for patients with this type of condition. Reasons may include its acute nature, and the need to intervene quickly in a surgical environment; patients with aortic arch dissection often suffer from many other conditions, which prevent them having particular surgeries; and often centres and surgical expertise may be lacking in this area, leading to a culture of using conventional rather than contemporary methods.\nFuture studies need to have adequate sample sizes and follow-up, and assess clinically relevant outcomes, in order to determine the best treatment for people with aortic arch dissection. It must be noted that this may not be feasible due to the reasons mentioned." } ]
query-laysum	7383	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEmergency departments (EDs) are facing serious and significant issues in the delivery of effective and efficient care to patients. Acute assessment services have been implemented at many hospitals internationally to assist in maintaining patient flow for identified groups of patients attending the ED. Identifying the risks and benefits, and optimal configurations of these services may be beneficial to those wishing to utilise an acute assessment service to improve patient flow.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of acute assessment services on patient flow following attendance at a hospital ED.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase and two trials registers on 24 September 2022 to identify studies. No restrictions were imposed on publication year, publication type, or publication language.\nSelection criteria\nStudies eligible for inclusion were randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials with at least two intervention and two control sites. Participants were adults (as defined by study authors) receiving care either in the ED or the acute assessment service, where both were based in the hospital setting. The comparison was hospital-based acute assessment services with usual, ED-only care. The outcomes of this review were mortality at time point closest to 30 days, length of stay in the service (in minutes), and waiting time to see a doctor (in minutes).\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed the standard procedures of Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care for this review (https://epoc.cochrane.org/resources).\nMain results\nWe identified a total of 5754 records in the search. Following assessment of 3609 de-duplicated records, none were found to be eligible for inclusion in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt present there are no randomised controlled trials exploring the effects of acute assessment services on patient flow in hospital-based emergency departments compared to usual, ED-only care.\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": "" } ]
query-laysum	7384	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHysteroscopy done in an outpatient setting is the 'gold standard' method for evaluating the uterine cavity. Media used to distend the uterine cavity include gas as carbon dioxide and liquid as saline that can be used at room temperature or warmed to body temperature. Both media offer advantages as well as disadvantages.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review is to compare the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of gas (carbon dioxide) and liquid (normal saline) used for uterine distension during outpatient hysteroscopy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO on 28 April 2021. We checked references of relevant trials and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. CINAHL records and ongoing trials from the trial registries were included in the CENTRAL search.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing saline with carbon dioxide, as well as RCTs comparing saline at different temperatures, for uterine distension in outpatient hysteroscopy done for any indication.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary review outcomes were patient tolerability and adverse events or complications related to the distending medium. Secondary outcomes were quality of the hysteroscopic view and duration of the procedure.\nMain results\nWe included 12 RCTs (1946 women). The quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate: the main limitations were risk of bias due to absence of blinding due to the nature of the procedure, imprecision, and inconsistency.\nSaline versus carbon dioxide\nAnalysis ruled out a clinically relevant difference in pain scores during the procedure between saline and carbon dioxide, but the quality of evidence was low (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.02; 9 RCTs, N = 1705; I² = 86%). This translates to differences of 0.39 cm (lower) and 0.05 cm (higher) on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS). Evidence was insufficient to show differences between groups in the proportion of procedures abandoned due to intense pain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.42; 1 RCT, N = 189; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether saline decreases the need for analgesia compared to carbon dioxide (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.99; 1 RCT, N = 189; very low-quality evidence).\nSaline compared to carbon dioxide is probably associated with fewer vasovagal reaction events (Peto OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.86; 6 RCTs, N = 1076; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer shoulder-tip pain events (Peto OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; 4 RCTs, N = 623; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence suggests that if 10% of women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy experience a vasovagal reaction event with the use of carbon dioxide, this rate would be between 3% and 9% with the use of saline. Similarly, if the rate of shoulder-tip pain with carbon dioxide is 9%, it would be between 1% and 5% with saline. We are uncertain whether saline is similar to carbon dioxide in terms of endometrial bleeding (Peto OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.75; 2 RCTs, N = 349; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Infection was not reported by any study in this comparison.\nSaline may result in fewer procedures with an unsatisfactory hysteroscopic view than carbon dioxide (Peto OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.82; 5 RCTs, N = 1082; I² = 67%; low-quality evidence). The duration of the procedure was shorter with saline in three of the four studies that reported this outcome, and duration was similar in both arms in the fourth study.\nWarm saline versus room temperature saline\nUse of warm saline for uterine distension during office hysteroscopy may reduce pain scores when compared with room temperature saline (mean difference (MD) -1.14, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.73; 3 RCTs, N = 241; I² = 77%; low-quality evidence). Evidence is insufficient to show differences between groups in either the proportion of procedures abandoned due to intense pain (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.87; 1 RCT, N = 77; very low-quality evidence) or the need for analgesia (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.32; 1 RCT, N = 100; very low-quality evidence).\nAnalysis ruled out a clinically relevant difference in duration of the procedure between warm and room temperature saline, but the quality of evidence is low (MD 13.17 seconds, 95% CI -12.96 to 39.29; 2 RCTs, N = 141; I² = 21%). No cases of infection were reported in either group (1 RCT, N = 100). No other adverse events and no information on quality of the hysteroscopic view were reported by any study in this comparison.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence was insufficient to show differences between different distension media used for uterine distension in outpatient hysteroscopy in terms of patient tolerability, operator satisfaction, or duration of the procedure. However, saline was superior to carbon dioxide in producing fewer adverse events (shoulder-tip pain and vasovagal reaction).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Evidence is of very low to moderate quality. The main limitations of the evidence are inability to mask the intervention from the participant and the operator, lack of precision, and inconsistent results." } ]
query-laysum	7385	[ { "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: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Our confidence in the key findings varied between moderate and high. However, some themes (the effect on outcomes of women being physically dependent on their abuser, being pregnant or having children) were less well supported by evidence and further, good-quality research is needed to confirm findings. Researchers should be careful when choosing how to measure abuse so that measures have more meaning for advocates and abused women, thus increasing the usefulness of future reviews. Further evidence from studies where participants are followed up for years would be helpful. More economic analyses are needed to establish if current advocacy interventions are the best way of spending money for abused women." } ]
query-laysum	7386	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSeasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on light therapy as a preventive intervention. Light therapy is a non-pharmacological treatment that exposes people to artificial light. Mode of delivery and form of light vary.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of light therapy (in comparison with no treatment, other types of light therapy, second-generation antidepressants, melatonin, agomelatine, psychological therapies, lifestyle interventions and negative ion generators) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles.\nSelection criteria\nFor efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we also intended to include non-randomised studies. We intended to include studies that compared any type of light therapy (e.g. bright white light, administered by visors or light boxes, infrared light, dawn stimulation) versus no treatment/placebo, second-generation antidepressants, psychological therapies, melatonin, agomelatine, lifestyle changes, negative ion generators or another of the aforementioned light therapies. We also planned to include studies that looked at light therapy in combination with any comparator intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications, independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies.\nMain results\nWe identified 3745 citations after de-duplication of search results. We excluded 3619 records during title and abstract review. We assessed 126 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, but only one study providing data from 46 people met our eligibility criteria. The included RCT had methodological limitations. We rated it as having high risk of performance and detection bias because of lack of blinding, and as having high risk of attrition bias because study authors did not report reasons for dropouts and did not integrate data from dropouts into the analysis.\nThe included RCT compared preventive use of bright white light (2500 lux via visors), infrared light (0.18 lux via visors) and no light treatment. Overall, white light and infrared light therapy reduced the incidence of SAD numerically compared with no light therapy. In all, 43% (6/14) of participants in the bright light group developed SAD, as well as 33% (5/15) in the infrared light group and 67% (6/9) in the non-treatment group. Bright light therapy reduced the risk of SAD incidence by 36%; however, the 95% confidence interval (CI) was very broad and included both possible effect sizes in favour of bright light therapy and those in favour of no light therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.38; 23 participants, very low-quality evidence). Infrared light reduced the risk of SAD by 50% compared with no light therapy, but the CI was also too broad to allow precise estimations of effect size (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17; 24 participants, very low-quality evidence). Comparison of both forms of preventive light therapy versus each other yielded similar rates of incidence of depressive episodes in both groups (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.28; 29 participants, very low-quality evidence). Reasons for downgrading evidence quality included high risk of bias of the included study, imprecision and other limitations, such as self-rating of outcomes, lack of checking of compliance throughout the study duration and insufficient reporting of participant characteristics.\nInvestigators provided no information on adverse events. We could find no studies that compared light therapy versus other interventions of interest such as second-generation antidepressants, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence on light therapy as preventive treatment for people with a history of SAD is limited. Methodological limitations and the small sample size of the only available study have precluded review author conclusions on effects of light therapy for SAD. Given that comparative evidence for light therapy versus other preventive options is limited, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Who will be interested in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Anyone who has experienced winter depression, or who has relatives and friends who have experienced winter depression." } ]
query-laysum	7387	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIntravenous cannulation is a painful procedure that can provoke anxiety and stress. Injecting local anaesthetic can provide analgesia at the time of cannulation, but it is a painful procedure. Topical anaesthetic creams take between 30 and 90 minutes to produce an effect. A quicker acting analgesic allows more timely investigation and treatment. Vapocoolants have been used in this setting, but studies have reported mixed results.\nObjectives\nTo determine effects of vapocoolants on pain associated with intravenous cannulation in adults and children. To explore variables that might affect the performance of vapocoolants, including time required for application, distance from the skin when applied and time to cannulation. To look at adverse effects associated with the use of vapocoolants.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science and the http://clinicaltrials.gov/, http://www.controlled-trials.com/ and http://www.trialscentral.org/ databases to 1 May 2015. We applied no language restrictions. We also scanned the reference lists of included papers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all blinded and unblinded randomized controlled trials (RTCs) comparing any vapocoolant with placebo or control to reduce pain during intravenous cannulation in adults and children.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, contacted study authors for additional information and assessed included studies for risk of bias. We collected and analysed data for the primary outcome of pain during cannulation, and for the secondary outcomes of pain associated with application of the vapocoolant, first attempt success rate of intravenous cannulation, adverse events and participant satisfaction. We performed subgroup analyses for the primary outcome to examine differences based on age of participant, type of vapocoolant used, application time of vapocoolant and clinical situation (emergency vs elective). We used random-effects model meta-analysis in RevMan 5.3 and assessed heterogeneity between trial results by examining forest plots and calculating the I2 statistic.\nMain results\nWe found nine suitable studies of 1070 participants and included them in the qualitative analyses. We included eight studies of 848 participants in the meta-analysis for the primary outcome (pain during intravenous cannulation). Use of vapocoolants resulted in a reduction in pain scores as measured by a linear 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS 100) compared with controls (difference between means -12.5 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -18.7 to -6.4 mm; moderate-quality evidence). We could not include in the meta-analysis one study, which showed no effects of the intervention.\nUse of vapocoolants resulted in increased pain scores at the time of application as measured by a VAS 100 compared with controls (difference between means 6.3 mm, 95% CI 2.2 to 10.3 mm; four studies, 461 participants; high-quality evidence) and led to no difference in first attempt success compared with controls (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; six studies, 812 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We documented eight minor adverse events reported in 279 vapocoolant participants (risk difference (RD) 0.03, 95% CI 0 to 0.05; five studies, 551 participants; low quality-evidence).\nThe overall risk of bias of individual studies ranged from low to high, with high risk of bias for performance and detection bias in four studies. Sensitivity analysis showed that exclusion of studies at high or unclear risk of bias did not materially alter the results of this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-quality evidence indicates that use of a vapocoolant immediately before intravenous cannulation reduces pain during the procedure. Use of vapocoolant does not increase the difficulty of cannulation nor cause serious adverse effects but is associated with mild discomfort during application.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Overall, the quality of the evidence was moderate rather than high. However, excluding studies of poorer quality did not materially alter the results of the review." } ]
query-laysum	7388	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nApproximately 1 in 10 pregnancies is affected by meconium passage at delivery, which can result in meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). MAS can cause respiratory complications and, very rarely, death. Antibiotics have been prescribed for neonates exposed to meconium in amniotic fluid, with the intention of preventing infection due to potential bacterial contaminants.\nObjectives\nWe conducted this review to assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics for:\n1. prevention of infection, morbidity, and mortality among infants born through meconium-stained amniotic fluid (MSAF) who are asymptomatic at birth; and\n2. prevention of infection, morbidity, and mortality among infants born through MSAF who have signs and symptoms compatible with meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS).\nSearch methods\nWe performed a literature search using the following databases: MEDLINE (1966 to July 2016); Embase (1980 to July 2016); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to July 2016); and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7) in the Cochrane Library. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared antibiotics administered via any route versus placebo or no treatment for prevention of infection among neonates exposed to MSAF, or who developed MAS. We excluded cohort, case control, and any other non-randomised studies and applied no language restrictions. We included studies of term and preterm infants, and we included studies examining use of any antibacterial antibiotics. We included studies that reported on any outcomes of interest.\nData collection and analysis\nWe assessed the methodological quality of included trials by reviewing information provided in study reports and obtained by personal communication with study authors. We extracted data on relevant outcomes, estimated effect size, and reported values as risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and mean differences (MDs), as appropriate. We conducted subgroup analyses for treatment of MAS and for prophylaxis (asymptomatic neonates exposed to meconium).\nMain results\nFour randomised controlled studies including a total of 695 participants were eligible for inclusion. Three studies evaluated neonates with MAS, and one study assessed asymptomatic neonates exposed to meconium in amniotic fluid. These studies exhibited varying degrees of methodological rigour: Two studies were at low risk of bias, and two were at unclear risk. We graded evidence derived from these studies as low quality. We downgraded overall evidence owing to the large number of participants lost to follow-up in one trial, the small sample sizes of all trials, and unclear methodological details provided for two trials.\nThe primary outcome was risk of early- and late-onset neonatal sepsis. Antibiotics did not decrease the risk of sepsis in neonates with a diagnosis of MAS (RR 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 8.96; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; 445 participants, three studies; I² = 0%) nor in asymptomatic neonates exposed to meconium in amniotic fluid (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.34; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.04; 250 participants, one study; I² = 0%). Results show no significant differences in mortality or duration of stay in hospital between groups given antibiotics and control groups of symptomatic and asymptomatic neonates. One study in asymptomatic neonates reported a significant reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation for the control group compared with the antibiotic group (MD 0.26, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; 250 participants, one study; I² = 0%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nUpon review of available evidence, we found no differences in infection rates following antibiotic treatment among neonates born through meconium-stained fluid and those with meconium aspiration syndrome. The overall quality of evidence is low owing to the small number of included studies. Well-controlled studies of adequate power are needed.\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": "We are uncertain as to whether antibiotics have an important effect on infection in babies exposed to meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Our results are imprecise, and more studies are needed to determine the role of antibiotics in this situation." } ]
query-laysum	7389	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFracture of the distal radius is a common clinical problem, particularly in older people with osteoporosis. There is considerable variation in the management, including rehabilitation, of these fractures. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2006.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effects of rehabilitation interventions in adults with conservatively or surgically treated distal radial fractures.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014; Issue 12), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, OTseeker and other databases, trial registers, conference proceedings and reference lists of articles. We did not apply any language restrictions. The date of the last search was 12 January 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs evaluating rehabilitation as part of the management of fractures of the distal radius sustained by adults. Rehabilitation interventions such as active and passive mobilisation exercises, and training for activities of daily living, could be used on their own or in combination, and be applied in various ways by various clinicians.\nData collection and analysis\nThe review authors independently screened and selected trials, and reviewed eligible trials. We contacted study authors for additional information. We did not pool data.\nMain results\nWe included 26 trials, involving 1269 mainly female and older patients. With few exceptions, these studies did not include people with serious fracture or treatment-related complications, or older people with comorbidities and poor overall function that would have precluded trial participation or required more intensive treatment. Only four of the 23 comparisons covered by these 26 trials were evaluated by more than one trial. Participants of 15 trials were initially treated conservatively, involving plaster cast immobilisation. Initial treatment was surgery (external fixation or internal fixation) for all participants in five trials. Initial treatment was either surgery or plaster cast alone in six trials. Rehabilitation started during immobilisation in seven trials and after post-immobilisation in the other 19 trials. As well as being small, the majority of the included trials had methodological shortcomings and were at high risk of bias, usually related to lack of blinding, that could affect the validity of their findings. Based on GRADE criteria for assessment quality, we rated the evidence for each of the 23 comparisons as either low or very low quality; both ratings indicate considerable uncertainty in the findings.\nFor interventions started during immobilisation, there was very low quality evidence of improved hand function for hand therapy compared with instructions only at four days after plaster cast removal, with some beneficial effects continuing one month later (one trial, 17 participants). There was very low quality evidence of improved hand function in the short-term, but not in the longer-term (three months), for early occupational therapy (one trial, 40 participants), and of a lack of differences in outcome between supervised and unsupervised exercises (one trial, 96 participants).\nFour trials separately provided very low quality evidence of clinically marginal benefits of specific interventions applied in addition to standard care (therapist-applied programme of digit mobilisation during external fixation (22 participants); pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) during cast immobilisation (60 participants); cyclic pneumatic soft tissue compression using an inflatable cuff placed under the plaster cast (19 participants); and cross-education involving strength training of the non-fractured hand during cast immobilisation with or without surgical repair (39 participants)).\nFor interventions started post-immobilisation, there was very low quality evidence from one study (47 participants) of improved function for a single session of physiotherapy, primarily advice and instructions for a home exercise programme, compared with 'no intervention' after cast removal. There was low quality evidence from four heterogeneous trials (30, 33, 66 and 75 participants) of a lack of clinically important differences in outcome in patients receiving routine physiotherapy or occupational therapy in addition to instructions for home exercises versus instructions for home exercises from a therapist. There was very low quality evidence of better short-term hand function in participants given physiotherapy than in those given either instructions for home exercises by a surgeon (16 participants, one trial) or a progressive home exercise programme (20 participants, one trial). Both trials (46 and 76 participants) comparing physiotherapy or occupational therapy versus a progressive home exercise programme after volar plate fixation provided low quality evidence in favour of a structured programme of home exercises preceded by instructions or coaching. One trial (63 participants) provided very low quality evidence of a short-term, but not persisting, benefit of accelerated compared with usual rehabilitation after volar plate fixation.\nFor trials testing single interventions applied post-immobilisation, there was very low quality evidence of no clinically significant differences in outcome in patients receiving passive mobilisation (69 participants, two trials), ice (83 participants, one trial), PEMF (83 participants, one trial), PEMF plus ice (39 participants, one trial), whirlpool immersion (24 participants, one trial), and dynamic extension splint for patients with wrist contracture (40 participants, one trial), compared with no intervention. This finding applied also to the trial (44 participants) comparing PEMF versus ice, and the trial (29 participants) comparing manual oedema mobilisation versus traditional oedema treatment. There was very low quality evidence from single trials of a short-term benefit of continuous passive motion post-external fixation (seven participants), intermittent pneumatic compression (31 participants) and ultrasound (38 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe available evidence from RCTs is insufficient to establish the relative effectiveness of the various interventions used in the rehabilitation of adults with fractures of the distal radius. Further randomised trials are warranted. However, in order to optimise research effort and engender the large multicentre randomised trials that are required to inform practice, these should be preceded by research that aims to identify priority questions.\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": "Interventions started during immobilisation \nTwo studies provided very low quality evidence that rehabilitation (hand therapy or task-orientated therapy) improved hand function after the plaster cast was removed, but not in the longer-term. One study provided very low quality evidence that outcome after supervised exercises did not differ from outcome after unsupervised exercises. Four studies provided very low quality evidence of some slight benefits of four different single methods of rehabilitation that were given with standard care.\nInterventions started post-immobilisation, mainly after removal of the plaster cast \nThere was very low quality evidence from one study of improved function for a single session of physiotherapy, primarily advice and instructions for a home exercise programme, compared with 'no intervention' after cast removal. There was low quality evidence from four very different studies of no clinically important differences in outcome in patients receiving routine physiotherapy or occupational therapy in addition to instructions for home exercises versus instructions for home exercises from a therapist. There was very low quality evidence of better short-term hand function in the participants given physiotherapy than in those given either instructions for home exercises by a surgeon (one study) or a progressive home exercise programme (one study). Both studies comparing physiotherapy or occupational therapy versus a progressive home exercise programme after surgery involving plate fixation (a metal plate and screws are used to hold the broken bone in place) found low quality evidence in favour of a structured programme of home exercises preceded by instructions or coaching. One study provided very low quality evidence of a short-term, but not persisting, benefit of accelerated compared with usual rehabilitation after surgery involving plate fixation.\nFor studies testing single interventions applied post-immobilisation, there was very low quality evidence of no clinically significant differences in outcome in patients receiving passive mobilisation, ice, pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF), PEMF plus ice, whirlpool immersion, and a dynamic extension splint for patients with a stiff wrist, compared with no intervention. This finding applied also to single studies comparing PEMF versus ice, and a new type of massage treatment for swelling when compared with the traditional approach. There was very low quality evidence from single studies of a short-term benefit of continuous passive motion immediately after removal of external fixation, intermittent pneumatic compression and ultrasound therapy." } ]
query-laysum	7390	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTraumatic wounds (wounds caused by injury) range from abrasions and minor skin incisions or tears, to wounds with extensive tissue damage or loss as well as damage to bone and internal organs. Two key types of traumatic wounds considered in this review are those that damage soft tissue only and those that involve a broken bone, that is, open fractures. In some cases these wounds are left open and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is used as a treatment. This medical device involves the application of a wound dressing through which negative pressure is applied and tissue fluid drawn away from the area. The treatment aims to support wound management, to prepare wounds for further surgery, to reduce the risk of infection and potentially to reduce time to healing (with or without surgical intervention). There are no systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of NPWT for traumatic wounds.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of NPWT for treating open traumatic wounds in people managed in any care setting.\nSearch methods\nIn June 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nPublished and unpublished randomised controlled trials that used NPWT for open traumatic wounds involving either open fractures or soft tissue wounds. Wound healing, wound infection and adverse events were our primary outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, carried out a 'Risk of bias' assessment and rated the certainty of the evidence. Data were presented and analysed separately for open fracture wounds and other open traumatic wounds (not involving a broken bone).\nMain results\nSeven RCTs (1377 participants recruited) met the inclusion criteria of this review. Study sample sizes ranged from 40 to 586 participants. One study had three arms, which were all included in the review. Six studies compared NPWT at 125 mmHg with standard care: one of these studies did not report any relevant outcome data. One further study compared NPWT at 75 mmHg with standard care and NPWT 125mmHg with NPWT 75 mmHg.\nOpen fracture wounds (four studies all comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care)\nOne study (460 participants) comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care reported the proportions of wounds healed in each arm. At six weeks there was no clear difference between groups in the number of participants with a healed, open fracture wound: risk ratio (RR) 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.27); moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded for imprecision.\nWe pooled data on wound infection from four studies (596 participants). Follow-up varied between studies but was approximately 30 days. On average, it is uncertain whether NPWT at 125 mmHg reduces the risk of wound infection compared with standard care (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.13; I2 = 56%); very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.\nData from one study shows that there is probably no clear difference in health-related quality of life between participants treated with NPWT 125 mmHg and those treated with standard wound care (EQ-5D utility scores mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.06; 364 participants, moderate-certainty evidence; physical component summary score of the short-form 12 instrument MD -0.50, 95% CI -4.08 to 3.08; 329 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded for imprecision).\nModerate-certainty evidence from one trial (460 participants) suggests that NPWT is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for open fractures in the UK. On average, NPWT was more costly and conferred few additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) when compared with standard care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was GBP 267,910 and NPWT was shown to be unlikely to be cost effective at a range of cost-per-QALYs thresholds. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision.\nOther open traumatic wounds (two studies, one comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care and a three-arm study comparing NPWT 125 mmHg, NPWT 75 mmHg and standard care)\nPooled data from two studies (509 participants) suggests no clear difference in risk of wound infection between open traumatic wounds treated with NPWT at 125 mmHg or standard care (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18); low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision.\nOne trial with 463 participants compared NPWT at 75 mmHg with standard care and with NPWT at 125 mmHg. Data on wound infection were reported for each comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in risk of wound infection between NPWT 75 mmHg and standard care (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.10; 463 participants) and uncertain if there is a difference in risk of wound infection between NPWT 75 mmHg and 125 mmHg (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.51; 251 participants. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for risk of bias and imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-certainty evidence for no clear difference between NPWT and standard care on the proportion of wounds healed at six weeks for open fracture wounds. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT is not a cost-effective treatment for open fracture wounds. Moderate-certainty evidence means that the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in risk of wound infection, adverse events, time to closure or coverage surgery, pain or health-related quality of life between NPWT and standard care for any type of open traumatic wound.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found seven relevant studies, dating from 2008-2017, which compared the effect of different strengths of NPWT with standard wound care. The studies involved a total of 1381 participants aged 12 years and over. The participants' sex was not recorded. Not all the studies stated how they were funded. One was funded by an NPWT manufacturer.\nThere is no clear difference in healing rates in participants with open fracture wounds treated with NPWT compared with those receiving standard care. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT is not a cost-effective treatment for open fracture wounds. We are very uncertain as to whether NPWT may reduce the likelihood of wound infection compared with standard care. There is no clear evidence that NPWT impacts on people's experience of pain, adverse events or their experience of receiving therapy." } ]
query-laysum	7391	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nWorldwide, hormonal contraceptives are among the most popular reversible contraceptives. Despite high perfect-use effectiveness rates, typical-use effectiveness rates for shorter-term methods such as oral and injectable contraceptives are much lower. In large part, this disparity reflects difficulties in ongoing adherence to the contraceptive regimen and low continuation rates. Correct use of contraceptives to ensure effectiveness is vital to reducing unintended pregnancy.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of strategies aiming to improve adherence to, and continuation of, shorter-term hormonal methods of contraception compared with usual family planning care.\nSearch methods\nWe searched to July 2018 in the following databases (without language restrictions): The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 7), PubMed via MEDLINE, POPLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing strategies aimed to facilitate adherence and continuation of shorter-term hormonal methods of contraception (such as oral contraceptives (OCs), injectable depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA or Depo-Provera), intravaginal ring, or transdermal patch) with usual family planning care in reproductive age women seeking to avoid pregnancy.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were continuation or discontinuation of contraceptive method, rates of discontinuation due to adverse events (menstrual disturbances and all other adverse events), and adherence to method use as indicated by missed pills and on-time/late injections. Pregnancy was a secondary outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 10 RCTs involving 6242 women. Six trials provided direct in-person counseling using either multiple counseling contacts or multiple components during one visit. Four trials provided intensive reminders of appointments or next dosing, of which two provided additional educational health information as well as reminders. All trials stated 'usual care' as the comparison.\nThe certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methodological detail, lack of blinding, and incomplete outcome data), inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision.\nContinuation of hormonal contraceptive methods\nIt is uncertain whether intensive counseling improves continuation of hormonal contraceptive methods compared with usual care (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.54; 2624 participants; 6 studies; I2 = 79%; very low certainty evidence). The evidence suggested: if the chance of continuation with usual care is 39%, the chance of continuation with intensive counseling would be between 41% and 50%. The overall pooled OR suggested continuation of improvement, however, when stratified by contraceptive method type, the positive results were restricted to DMPA.\nIt is uncertain whether reminders (+/- educational information) improve continuation of hormonal contraceptive methods compared with usual care (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.73; 933 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 69%; very low certainty evidence).The evidence suggested: if the chance of continuation with usual care is 52%, the chance of continuation with reminders would be between 52% and 65%.\nDiscontinuation due to adverse events\nThe evidence suggested that counseling may be associated with a decreased rate of discontinuation due to adverse events compared with usual care, with a lower rate of discontinuation due to menstrual disturbances (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.37; 350 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence), but may make little or no difference to all other adverse events (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.47; 350 participants; 1 study; low certainty evidence). The evidence suggested: if the chance of discontinuation with usual care due to menstrual disturbances is 32%, the chance of discontinuation with intensive counseling would be between 5% and 15%; and that if the chance of discontinuation with usual care due to other adverse events is 55%, the chance of discontinuation with intensive counseling would be between 30% and 64%.\nDiscontinuation was not reported among trials that investigated the use of reminders (+/- educational information).\nAdherence\nAdherence was not reported among trials that investigated the use of intensive counseling.\nAmong trials that investigated reminders (+/- educational information), there was no conclusive evidence of a difference in adherence as indicated by missed pills (MD 0.80, 95% CI -1.22 to 2.82; 73 participants; 1 study; moderate certainty evidence) or by on-time injections (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.29; 350 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). The evidence suggested: if the chance of adherence to method use as indicated by on-time injections with usual care is 50%, the chance of adherence with method use as indicated by on-time injections with reminders would be between 35% and 56%.\nPregnancy\nThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in rates of pregnancy between intensive counseling and usual care (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.57; 1985 participants; 3 studies; I2 = 0%, very low certainty evidence). The evidence suggested: if the chance of pregnancy with usual care is 18%, the chance of pregnancy with counseling would be between 18% and 25%.\nPregnancy was not reported among trials that investigated the use of reminders (+/- educational information).\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite the importance of this topic, studies have not been published since the last review in 2013 (nine studies) with only one study added in 2019 that neither changed the results nor improved the certainty of evidence.\nOverall, the certainty of evidence for strategies to improve adherence and continuation of contraceptives is low. Intensive counseling and reminders (with or without educational information) may be associated with improved continuation of shorter-term hormonal contraceptive methods when compared with usual family planning care. However, this should be interpreted with caution due to the low certainty of the evidence. Included trials used a variety of shorter-term hormonal contraceptive methods which may account for the high heterogeneity. It is possible that the effectiveness of strategies for improving adherence and continuation are contingent on the contraceptive method targeted. There was limited reporting of objectively measurable outcomes (e.g. electronic monitoring device) among included studies. Future trials would benefit from standardized definitions and measurements of adherence, and consistent terminology for describing interventions and comparisons. Further research requires larger studies, follow-up of at least one year, and improved reporting of trial methodology.\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": "There is some evidence to suggest that both intensive counseling and reminders (provided with or without educational information) may improve continuation of shorter-term hormonal contraception compared with usual family planning care." } ]
query-laysum	7392	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTongue-tie, or ankyloglossia, is a condition whereby the lingual frenulum attaches near the tip of the tongue and may be short, tight and thick. Tongue-tie is present in 4% to 11% of newborns. Tongue-tie has been cited as a cause of poor breastfeeding and maternal nipple pain. Frenotomy, which is commonly performed, may correct the restriction to tongue movement and allow more effective breastfeeding with less maternal nipple pain.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether frenotomy is safe and effective in improving ability to feed orally among infants younger than three months of age with tongue-tie (and problems feeding).\nAlso, to perform subgroup analysis to determine the following.\n• Severity of tongue-tie before frenotomy as measured by a validated tool (e.g. Hazelbaker Assessment Tool for Lingual Frenulum Function (ATLFF) scores < 11; scores ≥ 11) (Hazelbaker 1993).\n• Gestational age at birth (< 37 weeks' gestation; 37 weeks' gestation and above).\n• Method of feeding (breast or bottle).\n• Age at frenotomy (≤ 10 days of age; > 10 days to three months of age).\n• Severity of feeding difficulty (infants with feeding difficulty affecting weight gain (as assessed by infant's not regaining birth weight by day 14 or falling off centiles); infants with symptomatic feeding difficulty but thriving (greater than birth weight by day 14 and tracking centiles).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL up to January 2017, as well as previous reviews including cross-references, expert informants and journal handsearching. We searched clinical trials databases for ongoing and recently completed trials. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, quasi-randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials that compared frenotomy versus no frenotomy or frenotomy versus sham procedure in newborn infants.\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors extracted from the reports of clinical trials data regarding clinical outcomes including infant feeding, maternal nipple pain, duration of breastfeeding, cessation of breastfeeding, infant pain, excessive bleeding, infection at the site of frenotomy, ulceration at the site of frenotomy, damage to the tongue and/or submandibular ducts and recurrence of tongue-tie. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nFive randomised trials met our inclusion criteria (n = 302). Three studies objectively measured infant breastfeeding using standardised assessment tools. Pooled analysis of two studies (n = 155) showed no change on a 10-point feeding scale following frenotomy (mean difference (MD) -0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.6 to 0.5 units on a 10-point feeding scale). A third study (n = 58) showed objective improvement on a 12-point feeding scale (MD 3.5, 95% CI 3.1 to 4.0 units of a 12-point feeding scale). Four studies objectively assessed maternal pain. Pooled analysis of three studies (n = 212) based on a 10-point pain scale showed a reduction in maternal pain scores following frenotomy (MD -0.7, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.1 units on a 10-point pain scale). A fourth study (n = 58) also showed a reduction in pain scores on a 50-point pain scale (MD -8.6, 95% CI -9.4 to -7.8 units on a 50-point pain scale). All studies reported no adverse effects following frenotomy. These studies had serious methodological shortcomings. They included small sample sizes, and only two studies blinded both mothers and assessors; one did not attempt blinding for mothers nor for assessors. All studies offered frenotomy to controls, and most controls underwent the procedure, suggesting lack of equipoise. No study was able to report whether frenotomy led to long-term successful breastfeeding.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFrenotomy reduced breastfeeding mothers’ nipple pain in the short term. Investigators did not find a consistent positive effect on infant breastfeeding. Researchers reported no serious complications, but the total number of infants studied was small. The small number of trials along with methodological shortcomings limits the certainty of these findings. Further randomised controlled trials of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the effects of frenotomy.\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": "Tongue-tie is a condition whereby the membrane between the tongue and the floor of the mouth is too tight or too short. This may cause feeding problems for the baby and/or nipple pain for a breastfeeding mother." } ]
query-laysum	7393	[ { "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 did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer, and seventh most common cause of cancer death in women worldwide. Traditionally, women were followed up after their treatment in hospital outpatient departments. We wanted to evaluate the evidence for different types of follow-up for women who had completed treatment for the most common type of ovarian cancer." } ]
query-laysum	7394	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDepression is a common and important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Depression is commonly treated with antidepressants and/or psychological therapy, but some people may prefer alternative approaches such as exercise. There are a number of theoretical reasons why exercise may improve depression. This is an update of an earlier review first published in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of exercise in the treatment of depression in adults compared with no treatment or a comparator intervention.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group’s Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR) to 13 July 2012. This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years); MEDLINE (1950 to date); EMBASE (1974 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We also searched www.controlled-trials.com, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. No date or language restrictions were applied to the search.\nWe conducted an additional search of the CCDANCTR up to 1st March 2013 and any potentially eligible trials not already included are listed as 'awaiting classification.'\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials in which exercise (defined according to American College of Sports Medicine criteria) was compared to standard treatment, no treatment or a placebo treatment, pharmacological treatment, psychological treatment or other active treatment in adults (aged 18 and over) with depression, as defined by trial authors. We included cluster trials and those that randomised individuals. We excluded trials of postnatal depression.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data on primary and secondary outcomes at the end of the trial and end of follow-up (if available). We calculated effect sizes for each trial using Hedges' g method and a standardised mean difference (SMD) for the overall pooled effect, using a random-effects model risk ratio for dichotomous data. Where trials used a number of different tools to assess depression, we included the main outcome measure only in the meta-analysis. Where trials provided several 'doses' of exercise, we used data from the biggest 'dose' of exercise, and performed sensitivity analyses using the lower 'dose'. We performed subgroup analyses to explore the influence of method of diagnosis of depression (diagnostic interview or cut-off point on scale), intensity of exercise and the number of sessions of exercise on effect sizes. Two authors performed the 'Risk of bias' assessments. Our sensitivity analyses explored the influence of study quality on outcome.\nMain results\nThirty-nine trials (2326 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria, of which 37 provided data for meta-analyses. There were multiple sources of bias in many of the trials; randomisation was adequately concealed in 14 studies, 15 used intention-to-treat analyses and 12 used blinded outcome assessors.\nFor the 35 trials (1356 participants) comparing exercise with no treatment or a control intervention, the pooled SMD for the primary outcome of depression at the end of treatment was -0.62 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.81 to -0.42), indicating a moderate clinical effect. There was moderate heterogeneity (I² = 63%).\nWhen we included only the six trials (464 participants) with adequate allocation concealment, intention-to-treat analysis and blinded outcome assessment, the pooled SMD for this outcome was not statistically significant (-0.18, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.11). Pooled data from the eight trials (377 participants) providing long-term follow-up data on mood found a small effect in favour of exercise (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03).\nTwenty-nine trials reported acceptability of treatment, three trials reported quality of life, none reported cost, and six reported adverse events.\nFor acceptability of treatment (assessed by number of drop-outs during the intervention), the risk ratio was 1.00 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.04).\nSeven trials compared exercise with psychological therapy (189 participants), and found no significant difference (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.26). Four trials (n = 300) compared exercise with pharmacological treatment and found no significant difference (SMD -0.11, -0.34, 0.12). One trial (n = 18) reported that exercise was more effective than bright light therapy (MD -6.40, 95% CI -10.20 to -2.60).\nFor each trial that was included, two authors independently assessed for sources of bias in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration 'Risk of bias' tool. In exercise trials, there are inherent difficulties in blinding both those receiving the intervention and those delivering the intervention. Many trials used participant self-report rating scales as a method for post-intervention analysis, which also has the potential to bias findings.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExercise is moderately more effective than a control intervention for reducing symptoms of depression, but analysis of methodologically robust trials only shows a smaller effect in favour of exercise. When compared to psychological or pharmacological therapies, exercise appears to be no more effective, though this conclusion is based on a few small trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What does the evidence from the review tell us?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Exercise is moderately more effective than no therapy for reducing symptoms of depression.\nExercise is no more effective than antidepressants for reducing symptoms of depression, although this conclusion is based on a small number of studies. \nExercise is no more effective than psychological therapies for reducing symptoms of depression, although this conclusion is based on small number of studies.\nThe reviewers also note that when only high-quality studies were included, the difference between exercise and no therapy is less conclusive.\nAttendance rates for exercise treatments ranged from 50% to 100%.\nThe evidence about whether exercise for depression improves quality of life is inconclusive." } ]
query-laysum	7395	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of the original Cochrane Review, last published in 2012 (Loy 2012). Children and youths with disruptive behaviour disorders may present to health services, where they may be treated with atypical antipsychotics. There is increasing usage of atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of disruptive behaviour disorders.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effect and safety of atypical antipsychotics, compared to placebo, for treating disruptive behaviour disorders in children and youths. The aim was to evaluate each drug separately rather than the class effect, on the grounds that each atypical antipsychotic has different pharmacologic binding profile (Stahl 2013) and that this is clinically more useful.\nSearch methods\nIn January 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of atypical antipsychotics versus placebo in children and youths aged up to and including 18 years, with a diagnosis of disruptive behaviour disorders, including comorbid ADHD. The primary outcomes were aggression, conduct problems and adverse events (i.e. weight gain/changes and metabolic parameters). The secondary outcomes were general functioning, noncompliance, other adverse events, social functioning, family functioning, parent satisfaction and school functioning.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors (JL and KS) independently collected, evaluated and extracted data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. We performed meta-analyses for each of our primary outcomes, except for metabolic parameters, due to inadequate outcome data.\nMain results\nWe included 10 trials (spanning 2000 to 2014), involving a total of 896 children and youths aged five to 18 years. Bar two trials, all came from an outpatient setting. Eight trials assessed risperidone, one assessed quetiapine and one assessed ziprasidone. Nine trials assessed acute efficacy (over four to 10 weeks); one of which combined treatment with stimulant medication and parent training. One trial was a six-month maintenance trial assessing symptom recurrence.\nThe quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. Nine studies had some degree of pharmaceutical support/funding.\nPrimary outcomes\nUsing the mean difference (MD), we combined data from three studies (238 participants) in a meta-analysis of aggression, as assessed using the Aberrant Behaviour Checklist (ABC) ‒ Irritability subscale. We found that youths treated with risperidone show reduced aggression compared to youths treated with placebo (MD −6.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) −8.79 to −4.19; low-quality evidence). Using the standardised mean difference (SMD), we pooled data from two risperidone trials (190 participants), which used different scales: the Overt Aggression Scale ‒ Modified (OAS-M) Scale and the Antisocial Behaviour Scale (ABS); as the ABS had two subscales that could not be combined (reactive and proactive aggression), we performed two separate analyses. When we combined the ABS Reactive subscale and the OAS-M, the SMD was −1.30 in favour of risperidone (95% CI −2.21 to −0.40, moderate-quality evidence). When we combined the ABS Proactive subscale and OAS-M, the SMD was −1.12 (95% CI −2.30 to 0.06, moderate-quality evidence), suggesting uncertainty about the estimate of effect, as the confidence intervals overlapped the null value. In summary, there was some evidence that aggression could be reduced by risperidone. Data were lacking on other atypical antipsychotics, like quetiapine and ziprasidone, with regard to their effects on aggression.\nWe pooled data from two risperidone trials (225 participants) in a meta-analysis of conduct problems, as assessed using the Nisonger Child Behaviour Rating Form ‒ Conduct Problem subscale (NCBRF-CP). This yielded a final mean score that was 8.61 points lower in the risperidone group compared to the placebo group (95% CI −11.49 to −5.74; moderate-quality evidence).\nWe investigated the effect on weight by performing two meta-analyses. We wanted to distinguish between the effects of antipsychotic medication only and the combined effect with stimulants, since the latter can have a counteracting effect on weight gain due to appetite suppression. Pooling two trials with risperidone only (138 participants), we found that participants on risperidone gained 2.37 kilograms (kg) more (95% CI 0.26 to 4.49; moderate-quality evidence) than those on placebo. When we added a trial where all participants received a combination of risperidone and stimulants, we found that those on the combined treatment gained 2.14 kg more (95% CI 1.04 to 3.23; 3 studies; 305 participants; low-quality evidence) than those on placebo.\nSecondary outcomes\nOut of the 10 included trials, three examined general functioning, social functioning and parent satisfaction. No trials examined family or school functioning. Data on non-compliance/attrition rate and other adverse events were available from all 10 trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is some evidence that in the short term risperidone may reduce aggression and conduct problems in children and youths with disruptive behaviour disorders There is also evidence that this intervention is associated with significant weight gain.\nFor aggression, the difference in scores of 6.49 points on the ABC ‒ Irritability subscale (range 0 to 45) may be clinically significant. It is challenging to interpret the clinical significance of the differential findings on two different ABS subscales as it may be difficult to distinguish between reactive and proactive aggression in clinical practice. For conduct problems, the difference in scores of 8.61 points on the NCBRF-CP (range 0 to 48) is likely to be clinically significant. Weight gain remains a concern.\nCaution is required in interpreting the results due to the limitations of current evidence and the small number of high-quality trials. There is a lack of evidence to support the use of quetiapine, ziprasidone or any other atypical antipsychotic for disruptive behaviour disorders in children and youths and no evidence for children under five years of age. It is uncertain to what degree the efficacy found in clinical trials will translate into real-life clinical practice. Given the effectiveness of parent-training interventions in the management of these disorders, and the somewhat equivocal evidence on the efficacy of medication, it is important not to use medication alone. This is consistent with current clinical guidelines.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results and quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Our analysis suggested that risperidone led to a reduction of aggression (low-quality evidence) and conduct problems (moderate-quality evidence), to some extent, after six weeks of treatment, and that risperidone appeared relatively safe in the short-term. However, it was associated with significant weight gain (low- to moderate-quality evidence). There are other side effects that have not been well studied and long-term effects are not entirely clear. Clinicians prescribing such medication and families need to carefully consider the benefits and risks of medications. There were no studies with children under five years of age. There is a lack of studies of medications other than risperidone.\nWe recommend that more research be conducted to find out the long-term effects and safety of these medications. More research is also needed for other medications besides risperidone. Ideally, medication should be used with or preceded by effective psychosocial treatments, like parent training, consistent with current clinical guidelines. It is important that medications are used at adequate doses and for an adequate duration. Careful thought needs to be given to usage of medications sequentially or in combination in order to optimise the therapeutic effect while minimising polypharmacy.\nThe findings need to be considered with caution because of the limitations of the evidence. The studies used different outcome measures, which limited our ability to combine the findings. Six out of 10 studies had small numbers of participants, which affected the power of the studies (the ability of the study to distinguish an effect of a certain size from chance). The quality of the evidence for the main outcomes of this review — aggression, conduct problems and weight gain — ranged from low to moderate quality using the GRADE considerations." } ]
query-laysum	7396	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStents are placed in the femoropopliteal arteries for numerous reasons, such as atherosclerotic disease, the need for dissection, and perforation of the arteries, and can become stenosed with the passage of time. When a stent develops a flow-limiting stenosis, this process is known as \"in-stent stenosis.\" It is thought that in-stent restenosis is caused by a process known as \"intimal hyperplasia\" rather than by the progression of atherosclerotic disease. Management of in-stent restenosis may include performing balloon angioplasty, deploying another stent within the stenosed stent to force it open, and creating a bypass to deliver blood around the stent. The role of drug-eluting technologies, such as drug-eluting balloons (DEBs), in the management of in-stent restenosis is unclear. Drug-eluting balloons might function by coating the inside of stenosed stents with cytotoxic chemicals such as paclitaxel and by inhibiting the hyperplastic processes responsible for in-stent restenosis. It is important to perform this systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of DEB because of the potential for increased expenses associated with DEBs over uncoated balloon angioplasty, also known as plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA).\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety and efficacy of DEBs compared with uncoated balloon angioplasty in people with in-stent restenosis of the femoropopliteal arteries as assessed by criteria such as amputation-free survival, vessel patency, target lesion revascularization, binary restenosis rate, and death. We define \"in-stent restenosis\" as 50% or greater narrowing of a previously stented vessel by duplex ultrasound or angiography.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to November 28, 2017. Review authors also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials that compared DEBs versus uncoated balloon angioplasty for treatment of in-stent restenosis in the femoropopliteal arteries.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (AK, WA) independently selected appropriate trials and performed data extraction, assessment of trial quality, and data analysis. The senior review author (AD) adjudicated any disagreements.\nMain results\nThree trials that randomized a combined total of 263 participants met the review inclusion criteria. All three trials examined the treatment of symptomatic in-stent restenosis within the femoropopliteal arteries. These trials were carried out in Germany and Austria and used paclitaxel as the agent in the drug-eluting balloons. Two of the three trials were industry sponsored. Two companies manufactured the drug-eluting balloons (Eurocor, Bonn, Germany; Medtronic, Fridley, Minnesota, USA). The trials examined both anatomical and clinical endpoints. We noted heterogeneity in the frequency of bailout stenting deployment between studies as well as in the dosage of paclitaxel applied by the DEBs. Using GRADE assessment criteria, we determined that the certainty of evidence presented was very low for the outcomes of amputation, target lesion revascularization, binary restenosis, death, and improvement of one or more Rutherford categories. Most participants were followed up to 12 months, but one trial followed participants for up to 24 months.\nTrial results show no difference in the incidence of amputation between DEBs and uncoated balloon angioplasty. DEBs showed better outcomes for up to 24 months for target lesion revascularization (odds ratio (OR) 0.05, 95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.92 at six months; OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.70 at 24 months) and at six and 12 months for binary restenosis (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.56 at six months; OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.76 at 12 months). Participants treated with DEBs also showed improvement of one or more Rutherford categories at six and 12 months (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.21 at six months; OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.83 at 12 months). Data show no clear differences in death between DEBs and uncoated balloon angioplasty. Data were insufficient for subgroup or sensitivity analyses to be conducted.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on a meta-analysis of three trials with 263 participants, evidence suggests an advantage for DEBs compared with uncoated balloon angioplasty for anatomical endpoints such as target lesion revascularization (TLR) and binary restenosis, and for one clinical endpoint - improvement in Rutherford category post intervention for up to 24 months. However, the certainty of evidence for all these outcomes is very low due to the small number of included studies and participants and the high risk of bias in study design. Adequately powered and carefully constructed randomized controlled trials are needed to adequately investigate the role of drug-eluting technologies in the management of in-stent restenosis.\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": "Our review included three clinical trials that randomized 263 participants (most recent search - November 28, 2017). Trials included leg arteries at and above the knee and were carried out in Europe; all used DEBs that contained the chemical known as \"paclitaxel.\" Two companies manufactured the DEBs: Eurocor and Medtronic. Most study participants were followed for six or more months; this is called \"follow-up.\"" } ]
query-laysum	7397	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMany nations require child-serving professionals to report known or suspected cases of significant child abuse and neglect to statutory child protection or safeguarding authorities. Considered globally, there are millions of professionals who fulfil these roles, and many more who will do so in future. Ensuring they are trained in reporting child abuse and neglect is a key priority for nations and organisations if efforts to address violence against children are to succeed.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of training aimed at improving reporting of child abuse and neglect by professionals and to investigate possible components of effective training interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 18 other databases, and one trials register up to 4 June 2021. We also handsearched reference lists, selected journals, and websites, and circulated a request for studies to researchers via an email discussion list.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and controlled before-and-after studies examining the effects of training interventions for qualified professionals (e.g. teachers, childcare professionals, doctors, nurses, and mental health professionals) to improve reporting of child abuse and neglect, compared with no training, waitlist control, or alternative training (not related to child abuse and neglect).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used methodological procedures described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We synthesised training effects in meta-analysis where possible and summarised findings for primary outcomes (number of reported cases of child abuse and neglect, quality of reported cases, adverse events) and secondary outcomes (knowledge, skills, and attitudes towards the reporting duty). We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 11 trials (1484 participants), using data from 9 of the 11 trials in quantitative synthesis. Trials took place in high-income countries, including the USA, Canada, and the Netherlands, with qualified professionals. In 8 of the 11 trials, interventions were delivered in face-to-face workshops or seminars, and in 3 trials interventions were delivered as self-paced e-learning modules. Interventions were developed by experts and delivered by specialist facilitators, content area experts, or interdisciplinary teams. Only 3 of the 11 included studies were conducted in the past 10 years.\nPrimary outcomes\nThree studies measured the number of cases of child abuse and neglect via participants’ self-report of actual cases reported, three months after training. The results of one study (42 participants) favoured the intervention over waitlist, but the evidence is very uncertain (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.43; very low-certainty evidence).\nThree studies measured the number of cases of child abuse and neglect via participants’ responses to hypothetical case vignettes immediately after training. A meta-analysis of two studies (87 participants) favoured training over no training or waitlist for training, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD 1.81, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.32; very low-certainty evidence).\nWe identified no studies that measured the number of cases of child abuse and neglect via official records of reports made to child protection authorities, or adverse effects of training.\nSecondary outcomes\nFour studies measured professionals’ knowledge of reporting duty, processes, and procedures postintervention. The results of one study (744 participants) may favour the intervention over waitlist for training (SMD 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.21; low-certainty evidence).\nFour studies measured professionals' knowledge of core concepts in all forms of child abuse and neglect postintervention. A meta-analysis of two studies (154 participants) favoured training over no training, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD 0.68, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.01; very low-certainty evidence).\nThree studies measured professionals' knowledge of core concepts in child sexual abuse postintervention. A meta-analysis of these three studies (238 participants) favoured training over no training or waitlist for training, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD 1.44, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.45; very low-certainty evidence).\nOne study (25 participants) measured professionals' skill in distinguishing reportable and non-reportable cases postintervention. The results favoured the intervention over no training, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD 0.94, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.77; very low-certainty evidence).\nTwo studies measured professionals' attitudes towards the duty to report child abuse and neglect postintervention. The results of one study (741 participants) favoured the intervention over waitlist, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.76; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe studies included in this review suggest there may be evidence of improvements in training outcomes for professionals exposed to training compared with those who are not exposed. However, the evidence is very uncertain. We rated the certainty of evidence as low to very low, downgrading due to study design and reporting limitations. Our findings rest on a small number of largely older studies, confined to single professional groups. Whether similar effects would be seen for a wider range of professionals remains unknown. Considering the many professional groups with reporting duties, we strongly recommend further research to assess the effectiveness of training interventions, with a wider range of child-serving professionals. There is a need for larger trials that use appropriate methods for group allocation, and statistical methods to account for the delivery of training to professionals in workplace groups.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why do we need to improve the reporting of child abuse and neglect?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Child abuse and neglect results in significant harm to children, families, and communities. The most serious consequence is child fatality, but other consequences include physical injuries, mental health problems, alcohol and drug misuse, and problems at school and in employment. Many professional groups, such as teachers, nurses, doctors, and the police, are required by law or organisational policy to report known or suspected cases of child abuse and neglect to statutory child protection authorities. To prepare them for reporting, various training interventions have been developed and used. These can vary in duration, format, and delivery methods. For example, they may aim to increase knowledge and awareness of the indicators of child abuse and neglect; the nature of reporting duty and procedures; and attitudes towards reporting duty. Such training is usually undertaken postqualification as a form of continuing professional development; however, little is known about whether training works, either in improving reporting of child abuse and neglect generally, for different types of professionals, or for different types of abuse." } ]
query-laysum	7398	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMigraine is a common neurological problem associated with the highest burden amongst neurological conditions in terms of years lived with disability. Medications can be used as prophylaxis or rescue medicines, but are costly and not always effective. A range of psychological interventions have been developed to manage migraine.\nObjectives\nThe objective was to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of psychological therapies for the prevention of migraine in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from their inception until July 2018, and trials registries in the UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand for randomised controlled trials of any psychological intervention for adults with migraine.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of a psychological therapy for people with chronic or episodic migraine, with or without aura. Interventions could be compared to another active treatment (psychological or medical), an attention-placebo (e.g. supportive counselling) or other placebo, routine care, or waiting-list control. We excluded studies where fewer than 15 participants completed each arm.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted study characteristics and outcome data at post-treatment and the longest available follow-up. We analysed intervention versus control comparisons for the primary outcome of migraine frequency. We measured migraine frequency using days with migraines or number of migraine attacks measured in the four weeks after treatment. In addition, we analysed the following secondary outcomes: responder rate (the proportion of participants with a 50% reduction in migraine frequency between the four weeks prior to and the four weeks after treatment); migraine intensity; migraine duration; migraine medication usage; mood; quality of life; migraine-related disability; and proportion of participants reporting adverse events during the treatment. We included these variables, where available, at follow-up, the timing of which varied between the studies. We used the GRADE approach to judge the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe found 21 RCTs including 2482 participants with migraine, and we extracted meta-analytic data from 14 of these studies. The majority of studies recruited participants through advertisements, included participants with migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD) criteria and those with and without aura. Most intervention arms were a form of behavioural or cognitive-behavioural therapy. The majority of comparator arms were no treatment, routine care or waiting list. Interventions varied from one 20-minute session to 14 hours of intervention. No study had unequivocally low risk of bias; all had at least one domain at high risk of bias, and 20 had two to five domains at high risk. Reporting of randomisation procedures and allocation concealment were at high or unclear risk of bias. We downgraded the quality of evidence for outcomes to very low, due to very serious limitations in study quality and imprecision. Reporting in trials was poor; we found no preregistrations stipulating the outcomes, or demonstrating equivalent expectations between groups. Few studies reported our outcomes of interest, most only reported outcomes post treatment; follow-up data were sparse.\nPost-treatment effects\nWe found no evidence of an effect of psychological interventions for migraine frequency in number of migraines or days with migraine (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.17 to 0.13; 4 studies, 681 participants; very low-quality evidence).\nThe responder rate (proportion of participants with migraine frequency reduction of more than 50%) was greater for those who received a psychological intervention compared to control: 101/186 participants (54%) with psychological therapy; 37/152 participants (24%) with control (risk ratio (RR) 2.21, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.98; 4 studies, 338 participants; very low-quality evidence). We found no effect of psychological therapies on migraine intensity (SMD −0.13, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.02; 4 studies, 685 participants). There were no data for migraine duration (hours of migraine per day). There was no effect on migraine medication usage (SMD −0.06, 95% CI −0.35 to 0.24; 2 studies, 483 participants), mood (mean difference (MD) 0.08, 95% CI −0.33 to 0.49; 4 studies, 432 participants), quality of life (SMD −0.02, 95% CI −0.30 to 0.26; 4 studies, 565 participants), or migraine-related disability (SMD −0.67, 95% CI −1.34 to 0.00; 6 studies, 952 participants). The proportion of participants reporting adverse events did not differ between those receiving psychological treatment (9/107; 8%) and control (30/101; 30%) (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.00 to 7.85; 2 studies, 208 participants). Only two studies reported adverse events and so we were unable to draw any conclusions.\nWe rated evidence from all studies as very low quality.\nFollow-up\nOnly four studies reported any follow-up data. Follow-ups ranged from four months following intervention to 11 months following intervention. There was no evidence of an effect on any outcomes at follow-up (very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review identified 21 studies of psychological interventions for the management of migraine. We did not find evidence that psychological interventions affected migraine frequency, a result based on four studies of primarily brief treatments. Those who received psychological interventions were twice as likely to be classified as responders in the short term, but this was based on very low-quality evidence and there was no evidence of an effect of psychological intervention compared to control at follow-up. There was no evidence of an effect of psychological interventions on medication usage, mood, migraine-related disability or quality of life. There was no evidence of an effect of psychological interventions on migraine frequency in the short-term or long-term. In terms of adverse events, we were unable to draw conclusions as there was insufficient evidence. High and unclear risk of bias in study design and reporting, small numbers of participants, performance and detection bias meant that we rated all evidence as very low quality. Therefore, we conclude that there is an absence of high-quality evidence to determine whether psychological interventions are effective in managing migraine in adults and we are uncertain whether there is any difference between psychological therapies and controls.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched databases in July 2018 and found 21 studies with 2482 participants. Most studies investigated one of three interventions, namely a form of psychological therapy called cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT), which teaches skills to change thoughts and behaviours. Skills include coping strategies, or biofeedback or relaxation, which teaches people to reduce their tension either by concentrating on relaxing exercises or through a machine that gives feedback about muscle tension or body temperature. The remaining psychological treatments were examined in single studies; they included writing about emotions and eye movement desensitisation, and reprocessing, which uses eye movements to help people accept their pain and other negative experiences. We were interested in outcomes following treatment and at the longest available follow-up." } ]
query-laysum	7399	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis is an autosomal recessive multisystem disorder with an approximate prevalence of 1 in 3500 live births. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis is a lung disease caused by aspergillus-induced hypersensitivity with a prevalence of 2% to 15% in people with cystic fibrosis. The mainstay of treatment includes corticosteroids and itraconazole. The treatment with corticosteroids for prolonged periods of time, or repeatedly for exacerbations of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, may lead to many adverse effects. The monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, omalizumab, has improved asthma control in severely allergic asthmatics. The drug is given as a subcutaneous injection every two to four weeks. Since allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis is also a condition resulting from hypersensitivity to specific allergens, as in asthma, it may be a candidate for therapy using anti-IgE antibodies. Therefore, anti-IgE therapy, using agents like omalizumab, may be a potential therapy for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis in people with cystic fibrosis. This is an updated version of the review.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of anti-IgE therapy for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis in people with cystic fibrosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Last search: 09 September 2021.\nWe searched two ongoing trial registries (Clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO trials platform). Date of latest search: 16 August 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing anti-IgE therapy to placebo or other therapies for allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis in people with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included study. They planned to perform data analysis using Review Manager.\nMain results\nOnly one study enrolling 14 participants was eligible for inclusion in the review. The double-blind study compared a daily dose of 600 mg omalizumab or placebo along with twice daily itraconazole and oral corticosteroids, with a maximum daily dose of 400 mg. Treatment lasted six months but the study was terminated prematurely and complete data were not available. We contacted the study investigator and were told that the study was terminated due to the inability to recruit participants into the study despite all reasonable attempts. One or more serious side effects were encountered in six out of nine (66.67%) and one out of five (20%) participants in omalizumab group and placebo group respectively.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is lack of evidence for the efficacy and safety of anti-IgE (omalizumab) therapy in people with cystic fibrosis and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. There is a need for large prospective randomized controlled studies of anti-IgE therapy in people with cystic fibrosis and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis with both clinical and laboratory outcome measures such as steroid requirement, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis exacerbations and lung function.\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 effect of anti-IgE therapy for treating allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis in people with cystic fibrosis." } ]
query-laysum	7400	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nClavicle (collarbone) fractures account for around 4% of all fractures. Most (76%) clavicle fractures involve the middle-third section of the clavicle. Treatment of these fractures is usually non-surgical (conservative). Commonly used treatments are arm slings, strapping and figure-of-eight bandages.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effects (benefits and harms) of different methods for conservative (non-operative) treatment for acute (treated soon after injury) middle third clavicle fractures in adolescents and adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (from 1966), Embase (from 1980), LILACS (from 1982), trial registers, orthopaedic proceedings and reference lists of articles. We applied no language or publication restrictions. The date of the last search was 5 January 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials testing conservative interventions for treating adolescents and adults with acute middle third clavicle fractures. The primary outcomes were shoulder function or disability, pain and treatment failure.\nData collection and analysis\nFor this update, two review authors selected eligible trials, independently assessed risk of bias and cross-checked data extraction. We calculated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous variables, and mean differences and 95% confidence intervals for continuous variables. There was very limited pooling of data.\nMain results\nWe included four trials in this review with 416 participants, who were aged 14 years or above. One new trial was included in this update.\nVery low quality evidence was available from three trials (296 participants) that compared the figure-of-eight bandage with an arm sling for treating acute middle third clavicle fractures. The three trials were underpowered and compromised by poor methodology. Shoulder function was assessed in different ways in the three trials (data for 51, 61 and 152 participants); each trial provided very low quality evidence of similar shoulder function in the two groups. Pooled data from two trials (203 participants) showed no clinical difference between groups after two weeks in pain (visual analogue scale: 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain); mean difference (MD) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to 1.21; I² = 74%; very low quality evidence). A third trial (61 participants) provided very low quality evidence based on a non-validated scoring system of more pain and discomfort during the course of treatment in the figure-of-eight group. Treatment failure, measured in terms of subsequent surgery, was not reported in two trials; the third trial (152 participants) reported one participant in the arm sling group had surgery for secondary plexus nerve palsy. There was very low quality evidence from one trial (148 participants) of little difference in time to clinical fracture healing (MD 0.2 weeks, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.51); data from four non-symptomatic non-unions in the figure-of-eight group were not included. The very low evidence quality data for individual adverse outcomes (poor cosmetic appearance; change in allocated treatment due to pain and discomfort, worsened fracture position on healing; shortening > 15 mm; non-symptomatic non-union and permanent pain) did not confirm a difference between the two groups. There was no clear between group difference in the time to return to school or work activities (MD -0.12 weeks, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.45; 176 participants; very low quality evidence).\nModerate quality evidence was available from one trial (120 participants; reporting data for 101 participants), which evaluated therapeutic ultrasound. This trial was at low risk of bias but was underpowered and did not report on shoulder function or quality of life. The trial found no evidence of a difference between low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and placebo in pain, treatment failure (subsequent surgery: 6/52 versus 5/49; RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.47), the time to clinical fracture healing (MD -0.32 days, 95% CI -5.85 to 5.21), adverse events (one case of skin irritation was reported in each group) or time to resume previous activities.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current evidence available from randomised controlled trials is insufficient to determine which methods of conservative treatment are the most appropriate for acute middle third clavicle fractures in adolescents and adults. Further research is warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background and aims\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "A broken collarbone (clavicle fracture) is a common injury, particularly in adolescents, and accounts for up to 4% of all fractures. Most collarbone fractures occur in the middle-third section. These fractures are frequently treated with conservative treatments that do not involve surgery. Common conservative treatments are arm slings, strapping and figure-of-eight bandages.\nThis review aimed to evaluate the effects of different conservative treatments for treating collarbone fractures in adolescents and adults without surgery. The main outcomes we were interested in were long-term function and pain." } ]
query-laysum	7401	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIndications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure remains uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of NPWT for preventing SSI in wounds healing through primary closure, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPWT in wounds healing through primary closure.\nSearch methods\nIn January 2021, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and references of included studies, systematic reviews and health technology reports. There were no restrictions on language, publication date or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and quality assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. Our primary outcomes were SSI, mortality, and wound dehiscence.\nMain results\nIn this fourth update, we added 18 new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one new economic study, resulting in a total of 62 RCTs (13,340 included participants) and six economic studies. Studies evaluated NPWT in a wide range of surgeries, including orthopaedic, obstetric, vascular and general procedures. All studies compared NPWT with standard dressings. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for at least one key domain.\nPrimary outcomes\nEleven studies (6384 participants) which reported mortality were pooled. There is low-certainty evidence showing there may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT (0.84%) compared with standard dressings (1.17%) but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefits and harm; risk ratio (RR) 0.78 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.30; I2 = 0%). Fifty-four studies reported SSI; 44 studies (11,403 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT probably results in fewer SSIs (8.7% of participants) than treatment with standard dressings (11.75%) after surgery; RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.85; I2 = 29%). Thirty studies reported wound dehiscence; 23 studies (8724 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference in dehiscence between people treated with NPWT (6.62%) and those treated with standard dressing (6.97%), although there is imprecision around the estimate that includes risk of benefit and harms; RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.16; I2 = 4%). Evidence was downgraded for imprecision, risk of bias, or a combination of these.\nSecondary outcomes\nThere is low-certainty evidence for the outcomes of reoperation and seroma; in each case, confidence intervals included both benefit and harm. There may be a reduced risk of reoperation favouring the standard dressing arm, but this was imprecise: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.41; I2 = 2%; 18 trials; 6272 participants). There may be a reduced risk of seroma for people treated with NPWT but this is imprecise: the RR was 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 15 trials; 5436 participants). For skin blisters, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with NPWT may be more likely to develop skin blisters compared with those treated with standard dressing (RR 3.55; 95% CI 1.43 to 8.77; I2 = 74%; 11 trials; 5015 participants). The effect of NPWT on haematoma is uncertain (RR 0.79; 95 % CI 0.48 to 1.30; I2 = 0%; 17 trials; 5909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There is low-certainty evidence of little to no difference in reported pain between groups. Pain was measured in different ways and most studies could not be pooled; this GRADE assessment is based on all fourteen trials reporting pain; the pooled RR for the proportion of participants who experienced pain was 1.52 (95% CI 0.20, 11.31; I2 = 34%; two studies; 632 participants).\nCost-effectiveness\nSix economic studies, based wholly or partially on trials in our review, assessed the cost-effectiveness of NPWT compared with standard care. They considered NPWT in five indications: caesarean sections in obese women; surgery for lower limb fracture; knee/hip arthroplasty; coronary artery bypass grafts; and vascular surgery with inguinal incisions. They calculated quality-adjusted life-years or an equivalent, and produced estimates of the treatments' relative cost-effectiveness. The reporting quality was good but the evidence certainty varied from moderate to very low. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT in surgery for lower limb fracture was not cost-effective at any threshold of willingness-to-pay and that NPWT is probably cost-effective in obese women undergoing caesarean section. Other studies found low or very low-certainty evidence indicating that NPWT may be cost-effective for the indications assessed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPeople with primary closure of their surgical wound and treated prophylactically with NPWT following surgery probably experience fewer SSIs than people treated with standard dressings but there is probably no difference in wound dehiscence (moderate-certainty evidence). There may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT compared with standard dressings but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefit and harm (low-certainty evidence). People treated with NPWT may experience more instances of skin blistering compared with standard dressing treatment (low-certainty evidence). There are no clear differences in other secondary outcomes where most evidence is low or very low-certainty. Assessments of cost-effectiveness of NPWT produced differing results in different indications. There is a large number of ongoing studies, the results of which may change the findings of this review. Decisions about use of NPWT should take into account surgical indication and setting and consider evidence for all outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review is up to date to January 2021." } ]
query-laysum	7402	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe final adult height of untreated girls aged up to 18 years with Turner syndrome (TS) is approximately 20 cm shorter compared with healthy females. Treatment with growth hormone (GH) increases the adult height of people with TS. The effects of adding the androgen, oxandrolone, in addition to GH are unclear. Therefore, we conducted this systematic review to investigate the benefits and harms of oxandrolone as an adjuvant therapy for people with TS treated with GH.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of oxandrolone on growth hormone-treated girls aged up to 18 years with Turner syndrome.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was October 2018. We applied no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that enrolled girls aged up to 18 years with TS who were treated with GH and oxandrolone compared with GH only treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance, selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus, or by consultation with a fourth review author. We assessed trials for overall certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.\nMain results\nWe included six trials with 498 participants with TS, 267 participants were randomised to oxandrolone plus GH treatment and 231 participants were randomised to GH only treatment. The individual trial sample size ranged between 22 and 133 participants. The included trials were conducted in 65 different paediatric endocrinology healthcare facilities including clinics, centres, hospitals and academia in the USA and Europe. The duration of interventions ranged between 3 and 7.6 years. The mean age of participants at start of therapy ranged from 9 to 12 years. Overall, we judged only one trial at low risk of bias in all domains and another trial at high risk of bias in most domains. We downgraded the level of evidence mainly because of imprecision (low number of trials, low number of participants or both).\nComparing oxandrolone plus GH with GH only for final adult height showed a mean difference (MD) of 2.7 cm in favour of oxandrolone plus GH treatment (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 4.1; P < 0.001; 5 trials, 270 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.3 cm and 5.1 cm. For adverse events, we based our main analysis on reliable date from two trials with overall low risk of bias. There was no evidence of a difference between oxandrolone plus GH and GH for adverse events (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.96; P = 0.14; 2 trials, 170 participants; low-quality evidence). Six out of 86 (18.6%) participants receiving oxandrolone plus GH compared with 8/84 (9.5%) participants receiving GH only reported adverse events, mainly signs of virilisation (e.g. deepening of the voice). One trial each investigated the effects of treatments on speech (voice frequency; 88 participants), cognition (51 participants) and psychological status (106 participants). The overall results for these comparisons were inconclusive (very low-quality evidence). No trial reported on health-related quality of life or all-cause mortality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAddition of oxandrolone to the GH therapy led to a modest increase in the final adult height of girls aged up to 18 years with TS. Adverse effects identified included virilising effects such as deepening of the voice, but reporting was inadequate in some trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "What are the effects of giving oxandrolone to growth hormone-treated girls aged up to 18 years with Turner syndrome?" } ]
query-laysum	7403	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommends undertaking 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity per week, but most people do not. Workplaces present opportunities to influence behaviour and encourage physical activity, as well as other aspects of a healthy lifestyle. A pedometer is an inexpensive device that encourages physical activity by providing feedback on daily steps, although pedometers are now being largely replaced by more sophisticated devices such as accelerometers and Smartphone apps. For this reason, this is the final update of this review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace for increasing physical activity and improving long-term health outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) UPDATE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from the earliest record to December 2016. We also consulted the reference lists of included studies and contacted study authors to identify additional records. We updated this search in May 2019, but these results have not yet been incorporated. One more study, previously identified as an ongoing study, was placed in 'Studies awaiting classification'.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of workplace interventions with a pedometer component for employed adults, compared to no or minimal interventions, or to alternative physical activity interventions. We excluded athletes and interventions using accelerometers. The primary outcome was physical activity. Studies were excluded if physical activity was not measured.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. When studies presented more than one physical activity measure, we used a pre-specified list of preferred measures to select one measure and up to three time points for analysis. When possible, follow-up measures were taken after completion of the intervention to identify lasting effects once the intervention had ceased. Given the diversity of measures found, we used ratios of means (RoMs) as standardised effect measures for physical activity.\nMain results\nWe included 14 studies, recruiting a total of 4762 participants. These studies were conducted in various high-income countries and in diverse workplaces (from offices to physical workplaces). Participants included both healthy populations and those at risk of chronic disease (e.g. through inactivity or overweight), with a mean age of 41 years. All studies used multi-component health promotion interventions. Eleven studies used minimal intervention controls, and four used alternative physical activity interventions. Intervention duration ranged from one week to two years, and follow-up after completion of the intervention ranged from three to ten months.\nMost studies and outcomes were rated at overall unclear or high risk of bias, and only one study was rated at low risk of bias. The most frequent concerns were absence of blinding and high rates of attrition.\nWhen pedometer interventions are compared to minimal interventions at follow-up points at least one month after completion of the intervention, pedometers may have no effect on physical activity (6 studies; very low-certainty evidence; no meta-analysis due to very high heterogeneity), but the effect is very uncertain. Pedometers may have effects on sedentary behaviour and on quality of life (mental health component), but these effects were very uncertain (1 study; very low-certainty evidence).\nPedometer interventions may slightly reduce anthropometry (body mass index (BMI) -0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.45 to 0.18; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pedometer interventions probably had little to no effect on blood pressure (systolic: -0.08 mmHg, 95% CI -3.26 to 3.11; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have reduced adverse effects (such as injuries; from 24 to 10 per 100 people in populations experiencing relatively frequent events; odds ratio (OR) 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence). No studies compared biochemical measures or disease risk scores at follow-up after completion of the intervention versus a minimal intervention.\nComparison of pedometer interventions to alternative physical activity interventions at follow-up points at least one month after completion of the intervention revealed that pedometers may have an effect on physical activity, but the effect is very uncertain (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedentary behaviour, anthropometry (BMI or waist circumference), blood pressure (systolic or diastolic), biochemistry (low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, total cholesterol, or triglycerides), disease risk scores, quality of life (mental or physical health components), and adverse effects at follow-up after completion of the intervention were not compared to an alternative physical activity intervention.\nSome positive effects were observed immediately at completion of the intervention periods, but these effects were not consistent, and overall certainty of evidence was insufficient to assess the effectiveness of workplace pedometer interventions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExercise interventions can have positive effects on employee physical activity and health, although current evidence is insufficient to suggest that a pedometer-based intervention would be more effective than other options. It is important to note that over the past decade, technological advancement in accelerometers as commercial products, often freely available in Smartphones, has in many ways rendered the use of pedometers outdated. Future studies aiming to test the impact of either pedometers or accelerometers would likely find any control arm highly contaminated. Decision-makers considering allocating resources to large-scale programmes of this kind should be cautious about the expected benefits of incorporating a pedometer and should note that these effects may not be sustained over the longer term.\nFuture studies should be designed to identify the effective components of multi-component interventions, although pedometers may not be given the highest priority (especially considering the increased availability of accelerometers). Approaches to increase the sustainability of intervention effects and behaviours over a longer term should be considered, as should more consistent measures of physical activity and health outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We included evidence published up to December 2016." } ]
query-laysum	7404	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nParkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive disorder characterised by both motor and non-motor problems. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, licensed for treatment of type 2 diabetes, work by stimulating GLP-1 receptors in the pancreas, which triggers the release of insulin. GLP-1 receptors have been found in the brain. Insulin signalling in the brain plays a key role in neuronal metabolism and repair and in synaptic efficacy, but insulin signalling is desensitised in the brain of people with PD. Researchers are exploring the neuroprotective effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in neurodegenerative disorders such as PD.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists for Parkinson's disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group trials register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; and Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries, and we handsearched conference abstracts. The most recent search was run on 25 June 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with PD that compared GLP-1 receptor agonists with conventional PD treatment, placebo, or no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE. We resolved discrepancies between the two data extractors by consultation with a third review author.\nMain results\nThrough our searches, we retrieved 99 unique records, of which two met our inclusion criteria. One double-blind study of exenatide versus placebo randomised 62 participants, who self-administered exenatide or placebo for 48 weeks and were followed up at 60 weeks after a 12-week washout. One single-blind study of exenatide versus no additional treatment randomised 45 participants; participants in the intervention group self-administered exenatide for 12 months, and all participants were followed up at 14 months and 24 months following absence of exenatide for 2 months and 12 months, respectively. These trials had low risk of bias, except risk of performance bias was high for Aviles-Olmos 2013.\nExenatide versus placebo\nPrimary outcomes\nWe found low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide improves motor impairment as assessed by the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III in the off-medication state (mean difference (MD) -3.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.11 to -0.09). The difference in scores was slightly greater when scores were adjusted for baseline severity of the condition (as reported by study authors) (MD -3.5, 95% CI -6.7 to -0.3), exceeding the minimum clinically important difference (MCID).\nWe found low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide has little or no effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as assessed by the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ)-39 Summary Index (SI) (MD -1.80, 95% CI -6.95 to 3.35), the EuroQol scale measuring health status in five dimensions (EQ5D) (MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.16), or the EQ5D visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD 5.00, 95% CI -3.42 to 13.42). Eight serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded, but all were considered unrelated to the intervention. Low-certainty evidence suggests that exenatide has little or no effect on weight loss (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.76).\nExenatide versus no treatment\nPrimary outcomes at 14 months\nWe found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide improves motor impairment as assessed by MDS-UPDRS Part III off medication (MD -4.50, 95% CI -8.64 to -0.36), exceeding the MCID. We are uncertain whether exenatide improves HRQoL as assessed by the PDQ-39 SI (MD 3.50, 95% CI -2.75 to 9.75; very low-quality evidence). We found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide has little or no effect on the number of SAEs (RR 1.60, 95% 0.40 to 6.32). We found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide may lead to weight loss (MD -2.40 kg, 95% CI -4.56 to -0.24).\nPrimary outcomes at 24 months\nWe found evidence as reported by study authors to suggest that exenatide improves motor impairment as measured by MDS-UPDRS Part III off medication (MD 5.6 points, 95% CI 2.2 to 9.0). Exenatide may not improve HRQoL as assessed by the PDQ-39 SI (P = 0.682) and may not result in weight loss (MD 0.1 kg, 95% CI 3.0 to 2.8).\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow- or very low-certainty evidence suggests that exenatide may improve motor impairment for people with PD. The difference in motor impairment observed between groups may persist for some time following cessation of exenatide. This raises the possibility that exenatide may have a disease-modifying effect. SAEs were unlikely to be related to treatment. The effectiveness of exenatide for improving HRQoL, non-motor outcomes, ADLs, and psychological outcomes is unclear. Ongoing studies are assessing other GLP-1 receptor agonists.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The quality of evidence was low or very low. In one study, people not taking exenatide received their usual treatment only; thus, people in the study knew whether they were given extra treatment, and this may have changed the study results." } ]
query-laysum	7405	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic loss of appetite in cystic fibrosis concerns both individuals and families. Appetite stimulants have been used to help cystic fibrosis patients with chronic anorexia attain optimal body mass index (BMI) and nutritional status. However, these may have adverse effects on clinical status. This is an updated version of the original review.\nObjectives\nTo systematically search for and evaluate the evidence on the beneficial effects of appetite stimulants in the management of cystic fibrosis-related anorexia and synthesise reports of any side effects.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register and online trials registries; handsearched reference lists; and contacted local and international experts to identify relevant trials.\nLast search of the Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 23 May 2022.\nLast search of online trial registries: 10 May 2022.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of appetite stimulants compared to placebo, control, no treatment or different appetite stimulants, or to the same appetite stimulants at different doses or regimens for at least one month in adults and children with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and performed meta-analyses.\nMain results\nWe included four trials (70 participants) comparing appetite stimulants (cyproheptadine hydrochloride and megestrol acetate) to placebo; the numbers of adults or children within each trial were not always reported. We assessed the certainty of evidence as low due to the small number of participants, incomplete or selective outcome reporting, and unclear risk of selection bias.\nRegarding our primary outcomes, a meta-analysis of two trials (42 participants) showed that appetite stimulants may produce a larger increase in weight (kg) at three months (mean difference (MD) 1.25 kg, 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.45 to 2.05), and one trial (17 participants) showed a similar result at six months (MD 3.80 kg, 95% CI 1.27 to 6.33) (both low-certainty evidence). Results also showed that weight z score may increase with appetite stimulants compared to placebo at three months (MD 0.61, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; 3 studies; 40 participants; P < 0.001) and at six months (MD 0.74, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.22; 1 trial; 17 participants). There was no evidence of a difference in effect between cyproheptadine hydrochloride and megestrol acetate for either outcome.\nOnly one trial (25 participants) reported analysable data for body composition (BMI), with results favouring cyproheptadine hydrochloride compared to placebo; a further trial (16 participants) narratively agreed with this result.\nAll four trials reported on lung function at durations ranging from two to nine months. Considering analysable data, two trials (42 participants) found that appetite stimulants may make little or no difference in forced expiratory volume at one second (FEV1) % predicted at three months, and one trial (17 participants) found similar results at six months. Two further three-month trials narratively agreed with these results.\nLimited information was reported for secondary outcomes. Two trials (23 participants) reported results showing that appetite stimulants may increase appetite compared to placebo at three months (odds ratio 45.25, 95% CI 3.57 to 573.33; low-certainty evidence).\nOnly one study reported on quality of life, finding that cyproheptadine reduced fatigue in two participants compared with none with placebo. One study (25 participants) found no difference in energy intake between appetite stimulant or placebo at three months. Insufficient reporting of adverse effects prevented a full determination of their impact. Two studies (33 participants) narratively reported similar requirements for additional antibiotics between appetite stimulants and placebo at three months.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt six months in adults and children, appetite stimulants improved only two of the outcomes of this review: weight (or weight z score) and subjectively reported appetite. Insufficient reporting of side effects prevented a full determination of their impact. Whilst the data may suggest the potential use of appetite stimulants in treating anorexia in adults and children with cystic fibrosis, this is based upon low-certainty evidence from a small number of trials, therefore firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Clinicians need to be aware of the potential adverse effects of appetite stimulants and actively monitor any individuals prescribed these medications accordingly.\nResearch is required to determine meaningful surrogate measures for appetite and to define what constitutes quality weight gain. Future trials of appetite stimulants should use a validated measure of symptoms including a disease-specific instrument for measuring poor appetite. This review highlights the need for multicentred, adequately powered, and well-designed trials to evaluate agents to safely increase appetite in people with cystic fibrosis and to establish the optimal mode of treatment.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We have low confidence in the results being able to show the true effectiveness of appetite stimulants. We came to this conclusion because although we think that most of the people taking part had the same chance of being in the appetite stimulant or placebo group, and no one could not tell the difference between the appetite stimulant or the placebo, there may be some bias due to the small numbers of participants in the studies, and because in two studies some participants withdrew without clear reasons being given. Another possible source of bias is that three studies did not report on all of their pre-planned outcomes." } ]
query-laysum	7406	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTotally implantable venous access ports (TIVAPs) provide patients with a safe and permanent venous access, for instance in the administration of chemotherapy for oncology patients. There are several methods for TIVAP placement, and the optimal evidence-based method is unclear.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy and safety of three commonly used techniques for implanting TIVAPs: the venous cutdown technique, the Seldinger technique, and the modified Seldinger technique. This review includes studies that use Doppler or real-time two-dimensional ultrasonography for locating the vein in the Seldinger technique.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (last searched August 2015) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 7), as well as clinical trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials that randomly allocated people requiring TIVAP to the venous cutdown, Seldinger, or modified Seldinger technique. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion eligibility, with a third review author checking excluded studies.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data. We assessed all studies for risk of bias. We assessed heterogeneity using Chi2 statistic and variance (I2statistic) methods. Dichotomous outcomes, summarised as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), were: primary implantation success, complications (in particular infection), pneumothorax, and catheter complications. We conducted separate analyses to assess the two access veins, subclavian and internal jugular (IJ) vein, in the Seldinger technique versus the venous cutdown technique. We used both intention-to-treat (ITT) and on-treatment analyses and pooled data using a fixed-effect model.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies with a total of 1253 participants in the review. Five studies compared Seldinger technique (subclavian vein access) with venous cutdown technique (cephalic vein access). Two studies compared Seldinger (IJ vein) versus venous cutdown (cephalic vein). One study compared the modified Seldinger technique (cephalic vein) with the venous cutdown (cephalic vein), and one study compared the Seldinger (subclavian vein) versus the Seldinger (IJ vein) technique.\nSeldinger technique (subclavian or IJ vein access) versus venous cutdown (cephalic vein): We included seven trials with 1006 participants for analysis. Both ITT (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.65) and on-treatment analysis (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.98) showed that the Seldinger technique for implantation of TIVAP had a higher success rate compared with the venous cutdown technique. We found no difference between overall peri- and postoperative complication rates: ITT (OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.75) and on-treatment analysis (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.40). In the Seldinger group, the majority of the trials reported use of the subclavian vein for venous access, with only a limited number of trials utilising the IJ vein for access. When individual complication rates of infection, pneumothorax, and catheter complications were analysed, the Seldinger technique (subclavian vein access) was associated with a higher rate of catheter complications compared to the venous cutdown technique: ITT (OR 6.77; 95% CI 2.31 to 19.79) and on-treatment analysis (OR 6.62; 95% CI 2.24 to 19.58). There was no difference in incidence of infections, pneumothorax, and other complications between the groups.\nModified Seldinger technique (cephalic vein) versus venous cutdown (cephalic vein): We identified one trial with 164 participants. ITT analysis showed no difference in primary implantation success rate between the modified Seldinger technique (69/82, 84%) and the venous cutdown technique (66/82, 80%), P = 0.686. We observed no differences in the peri- or postoperative complication rates.\nSeldinger (subclavian vein access) versus Seldinger (IJ vein access): We identified one trial with 83 participants. The primary success rate was 84% (37/44) for Seldinger (subclavian vein) versus 74% (29/39) for the Seldinger (IJ vein). There was a higher overall complication rate in the subclavian group (48%) compared to the jugular group (23%), P = 0.02. However, when specific complications were compared individually, we found no differences between the groups.\nThe overall quality of the trials included in this review was moderate. The methods used for randomisation were inadequate in four of the nine included studies, but sensitivity analysis excluding these trials did not alter the outcome. The nature of the interventions, either venous cutdown or Seldinger techniques, meant that it was not feasible to blind the participant or personnel, therefore we judged this to be at low risk of bias. The majority of participants in the included trials were oncology patients at tertiary centres, and the outcomes were applicable to the typical clinical scenario. For all outcomes, when comparing venous cutdown and Seldinger technique, serious imprecision was evident by wide confidence intervals in the included trials. The quality of the overall evidence was therefore downgraded from high to moderate. Due to the limited number of included studies we were unable to assess publication bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-quality evidence showed that the Seldinger technique has a higher primary implantation success rate compared with the venous cutdown technique. The majority of trials using the Seldinger technique used the subclavian vein for venous access, and only a few trials reported the use of the internal jugular vein for venous access. Moderate-quality evidence showed no difference in the overall complication rate between the Seldinger and venous cutdown techniques. However, when the Seldinger technique with subclavian vein access was compared with the venous cutdown group, there was a higher reported incidence of catheter complications. The rates of pneumothorax and infection did not differ between the Seldinger and venous cutdown group. We identified only one trial for each of the comparisons modified Seldinger technique (cephalic vein) versus venous cutdown (cephalic vein) and Seldinger (subclavian vein access) versus Seldinger (IJ vein access), thus a definitive conclusion cannot be drawn for these comparisons and further research is recommended.\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 overall quality of the included trials was moderate. The methods used for randomisation were inadequate in four of the nine included studies, but an analysis excluding these trials did not alter the outcome. The nature of the interventions, either venous cutdown or Seldinger techniques, meant that it was not feasible to blind the participant or personnel, therefore we judged this to be at low risk of bias. The great majority of participants in the included trials were cancer patients at tertiary centres, and the outcomes were applicable to the typical clinical scenario. For all outcomes, when comparing venous cutdown and Seldinger technique, serious imprecision was evident by wide confidence intervals in the included trials. The quality of the overall evidence was therefore downgraded from high to moderate. Due to the limited number of included studies we were unable to assess publication bias." } ]
query-laysum	7407	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNeonatal sepsis and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) cause significant neonatal mortality and morbidity despite appropriate antibiotic therapy. Enhancing host defense and modulating inflammation by using lactoferrin as an adjunct to antibiotics in the treatment of sepsis, NEC, or both, may improve clinical outcomes.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective was to assess safety and efficacy of oral lactoferrin as an adjunct to antibiotics in the treatment of neonates with suspected or confirmed sepsis, NEC, or both.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 9), MEDLINE via PubMed, PREMEDLINE, (1966 to 20 September 2018) Embase (1980 to 20 September 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 20 September 2018). We also searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, the reference lists of retried articles and clinical trials, and the authors' personal files.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials evaluating enteral lactoferrin (at any dose or duration), used as an adjunct to antibiotic therapy, compared with antibiotic therapy alone (with or without placebo) or other adjuncts to antibiotic therapy to treat neonates at any gestational age up to 44 weeks' postmenstrual age with confirmed or suspected sepsis or necrotizing enterocolitis (Bell's Stage II or III).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standardized methods of Cochrane Neonatal for conducting a systematic review and for assessing the methodological quality of studies (neonatal.cochrane.org/en/index.html). The titles and the abstracts of studies identified by the search strategy were independently assessed by the two review authors and full text versions were obtained for assessment if necessary. Forms were designed to record trial inclusion/exclusion and data extraction. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any eligible trials evaluating lactoferrin for the treatment of neonatal sepsis or NEC.\nAuthors' conclusions\nImplications for practice: currently there is no evidence to support or refute the use of enteral lactoferrin, as an adjunct to antibiotic therapy, for the treatment of neonatal sepsis or necrotizing enterocolitis.\nImplications for research: given the lack of efficacy of enteral lactoferrin for preventing late-onset sepsis and necrotizing enterocolitis, evaluation of enteral lactoferrin as an adjunctive agent for treatment of sepsis or necrotizing enterocolitis does not appear to be a research priority.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Is lactoferrin supplementation, along with antibiotics, effective and safe for babies with sepsis and necrotizing enterocolitis?" } ]
query-laysum	7408	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNeonatal healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) result in increased morbidity and mortality, as well as increased healthcare costs. Patient isolation measures, i.e. single-room isolation or the cohorting of patients with similar infections, remain a recommended and commonly used practice for preventing horizontal spread of infections in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).\nObjectives\nOur primary objective was to assess the effect of single-room isolation or cohorting, or both for preventing transmission of HAIs or colonization with HAI-causing pathogens in newborn infants less than six months of age admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).\nOur secondary objective was to assess the effect of single-room isolation or cohorting, or both on neonatal mortality and perceived or documented adverse effects in newborn infants admitted to the NICU.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries. There were no restrictions to date, language or publication type. We also checked the reference lists of studies identified for full-text review.\nSelection criteria\nTypes of studies: cluster-randomized or quasi-randomized trials at the level of the cluster (where clusters may be defined by NICU, hospital, ward, or other subunits of the hospital). We also included cross-over trials with a washout period of more than four months (arbitrarily defined).\nTypes of participants: newborn infants less than six months of age in neonatal units that implemented patient isolation or cohorting as infection control measures to prevent HAIs.\nTypes of interventions: patient isolation measures (single-room isolation or cohorting, or both of infants with similar colonization or infections) compared to routine isolation measures.\nTypes of outcome measures: the primary outcome was the rate of transmission of HAIs as estimated by the infection and colonization rates in the NICU. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality during hospital stay at 28 days of age, length of hospital stay, as well as potential adverse effects of isolation or cohorting measures, or both.\nData collection and analysis\nThe standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal were used to identify studies and assess the methodological quality of eligible cluster-randomized trials. The certainty of the evidence was to be assessed by the GRADE method as evidence of high, moderate, low, or very low certainty. Infection and colonization rates were to be expressed as rate ratios for each trial and if appropriate for meta-analysis, the generic inverse variance method in RevMan was to be used.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any published or ongoing trials to include in the review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe review found no evidence from randomized trials to either support or refute the use of patient isolation measures (single-room isolation or cohorting) in neonates with HAIs. Risks secondary to infection control measures need to be balanced against the benefits of decreasing horizontal transmission in the neonatal unit for optimal neonatal outcomes. There is an urgent need to research the effectiveness of patient isolation measures for preventing the transmission of HAIs in neonatal units. Well-designed trials randomizing clusters of units or hospitals to a type of patient isolation method intervention are warranted.\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 keeping infants with infections in separate rooms (single-room isolation) or grouped and cared for together (cohorting), or both will reduce the spread of the infection from one infant to another." } ]
query-laysum	7409	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMiscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy that can be caused by a wide range of factors. Poor dietary intake of vitamins has been associated with an increased risk of miscarriage, therefore supplementing women with vitamins either prior to or in early pregnancy may help prevent miscarriage.\nObjectives\nThe objectives of this review were to determine the effectiveness and safety of any vitamin supplementation, on the risk of spontaneous miscarriage.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (6 November 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing supplementation during pregnancy with one or more vitamins with either placebo, other vitamins, no vitamins or other interventions. We have included supplementation that started prior to conception, periconceptionally or in early pregnancy (less than 20 weeks' gestation).\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trial quality. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The quality of evidence is included for numerical results of outcomes included in the 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 40 trials (involving 276,820 women and 278,413 pregnancies) assessing supplementation with any vitamin(s) starting prior to 20 weeks' gestation and reporting at least one primary outcome that was eligible for the review. Eight trials were cluster-randomised and contributed data for 217,726 women and 219,267 pregnancies in total.\nApproximately half of the included trials were assessed to have a low risk of bias for both random sequence generation and adequate concealment of participants to treatment and control groups.\nVitamin C supplementation\nThere was no difference in the risk of total fetal loss (risk ratio (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.40, seven trials, 18,949 women; high-quality evidence); early or late miscarriage (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.26, four trials, 13,346 women; moderate-quality evidence); stillbirth (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.76, seven trials, 21,442 women; moderate-quality evidence) or adverse effects of vitamin supplementation (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.41, one trial, 739 women; moderate-quality evidence) between women receiving vitamin C with vitamin E compared with placebo or no vitamin C groups. No clear differences were seen in the risk of total fetal loss or miscarriage between women receiving any other combination of vitamin C compared with placebo or no vitamin C groups.\nVitamin A supplementation\nNo difference was found in the risk of total fetal loss (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.66, three trials, 1640 women; low-quality evidence); early or late miscarriage (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.62, two trials, 1397 women; low-quality evidence) or stillbirth (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.91, three trials, 1640 women; low-quality evidence) between women receiving vitamin A plus iron and folate compared with placebo or no vitamin A groups. There was no evidence of differences in the risk of total fetal loss or miscarriage between women receiving any other combination of vitamin A compared with placebo or no vitamin A groups.\nMultivitamin supplementation\nThere was evidence of a decrease in the risk for stillbirth among women receiving multivitamins plus iron and folic acid compared iron and folate only groups (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.99, 10 trials, 79,851 women; high-quality evidence). Although total fetal loss was lower in women who were given multivitamins without folic acid (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.70, one trial, 907 women); and multivitamins with or without vitamin A (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.92, one trial, 1074 women), these findings included one trial each with small numbers of women involved. Also, they include studies where the comparison groups included women receiving either vitamin A or placebo, and thus require caution in interpretation.\nWe found no difference in the risk of total fetal loss (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.00, 10 trials, 94,948 women; high-quality evidence) or early or late miscarriage (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03, 10 trials, 94,948 women; moderate-quality evidence) between women receiving multivitamins plus iron and folic acid compared with iron and folate only groups.\nThere was no evidence of differences in the risk of total fetal loss or miscarriage between women receiving any other combination of multivitamins compared with placebo, folic acid or vitamin A groups.\nFolic acid supplementation\nThere was no evidence of any difference in the risk of total fetal loss, early or late miscarriage, stillbirth or congenital malformations between women supplemented with folic acid with or without multivitamins and/or iron compared with no folic acid groups.\nAntioxidant vitamins supplementation\nThere was no evidence of differences in early or late miscarriage between women given antioxidant compared with the low antioxidant group (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.24 to 5.29, one trial, 110 women).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTaking any vitamin supplements prior to pregnancy or in early pregnancy does not prevent women experiencing miscarriage. However, evidence showed that women receiving multivitamins plus iron and folic acid had reduced risk for stillbirth. There is insufficient evidence to examine the effects of different combinations of vitamins on miscarriage and miscarriage-related outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What evidence did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review included 40 randomised controlled trials involving 276,820 women and 278,413 pregnancies. Supplementing women with any vitamins does not reduce the number of women who have miscarriages. However, the risk for stillbirth was reduced among women receiving multivitamins plus iron and folic acid compared with iron and folate only groups. Although total fetal loss was lower in women who were given multivitamins without folic acid and multivitamins with or without vitamin A, these findings included one trial each with small numbers of women involved. Also, they include studies where the comparison groups included women receiving either vitamin A or placebo, and thus require caution in interpretation." } ]
query-laysum	7410	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDepression is common in the postnatal period and can lead to adverse effects on the infant and wider family, in addition to the morbidity for the mother. It is not clear whether antidepressants are effective for the prevention of postnatal depression and little is known about possible adverse effects for the mother and infant, particularly during breastfeeding. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2005.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of antidepressant medication for the prevention of postnatal depression, in comparison with any other treatment, placebo or standard care.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR ‒ both Studies and References), CENTRAL (Wiley), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), on 13 February 2018. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 13 February 2018 to identify any additional unpublished or ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of initiation of antidepressants (alone or in combination with another treatment), compared with any other treatment, placebo or standard care for the prevention of postnatal depression among women who were either pregnant or had given birth in the previous six weeks and were not currently depressed at baseline.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We requested missing information from investigators wherever possible and sought data to allow intention-to-treat analyses.\nMain results\nTwo trials including a total of 81 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. All participants in both studies had a history of postnatal depression and were not taking antidepressant medication at baseline. Both trials were conducted by the same research group. Risk of bias was low or unclear in most domains for both studies. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis due to the small number of studies.\nOne study compared nortriptyline with placebo and did not find any evidence that nortriptyline was effective in preventing postnatal depression. In this study, 23% (6/26) of women who took nortriptyline and 24% (6/25) of women who took placebo experienced postnatal depression (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.59, very low quality evidence) in the first 17 weeks postpartum. One woman taking nortriptyline developed mania; and one side effect, constipation, was more common among women taking nortriptyline than those taking placebo.\nThe second study compared sertraline with placebo. In this study, 7% (1/14) of women who took sertraline developed postnatal depression in the first 17 weeks postpartum compared with 50% (4/8) of women who took placebo. It is uncertain whether sertraline reduces the risk of postnatal depression (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.07, very low quality evidence). One woman taking sertraline had a hypomanic episode. Two side effects (dizziness and drowsiness) were more common among women taking sertraline than women taking placebo.\nConclusions are limited by the small number of studies, small sample sizes and incomplete outcome data due to study drop-out which may have led to bias in the results. We have assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low, based on the GRADE system. No data were available on secondary outcomes of interest including child development, the mother‒infant relationship, breastfeeding, maternal daily functioning, family relationships or maternal satisfaction.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDue to the limitations of the current evidence base, such as the low statistical power of the included studies, it is not possible to draw any clear conclusions about the effectiveness of antidepressants for the prevention of postnatal depression. It is striking that no new eligible trials have been completed in the period of over a decade since the last published version of this review. Larger trials are needed which include comparisons of antidepressant drugs with other prophylactic treatments (e.g. psychological interventions), and examine adverse effects for the fetus or infant. Future reviews in this area may benefit from broadening their focus to examine the effectiveness of antidepressants for the prevention of perinatal (i.e. antenatal or postnatal) depression, which could include studies comparing antidepressant discontinuation with continuation for the prevention of relapse of depression during pregnancy and the postnatal period.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There was no evidence that nortriptyline prevented postnatal depression. During the 17-week treatment period, 6 of the 26 women taking nortriptyline experienced postnatal depression compared with 6 of the 25 women taking placebo. One woman taking nortriptyline developed mania (a state of abnormally high arousal and energy level), and constipation was more common among women taking nortriptyline, but other unwanted, or harmful, effects did not differ between groups.\nIn the sertraline study, 1 of the 14 women taking sertraline developed postnatal depression compared with 4 of the 8 women taking placebo (during the 17-week treatment period). This study was very small, so we can't be sure whether the difference between sertraline and placebo is due to chance, or whether sertraline does prevent postnatal depression among women with a history of postnatal depression. One woman taking sertraline experienced a hypomanic episode (a state like mania but less severe); and dizziness and drowsiness were more common among women taking sertraline than women taking placebo." } ]
query-laysum	7411	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDepressive disorders are the most common psychiatric comorbidity in people with epilepsy, affecting around one-third, with a significant negative impact on quality of life. There is concern that people may not be receiving appropriate treatment for their depression because of uncertainty regarding which antidepressant or class works best, and the perceived risk of exacerbating seizures. This review aimed to address these issues, and inform clinical practice and future research.\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2014.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms and the effect on seizure recurrence, in people with epilepsy and depression.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched CRS Web, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2021). We searched the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Registry in October 2019, but were unable to update it because it was inaccessible. There were no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), investigating children or adults with epilepsy, who were treated with an antidepressant and compared to placebo, comparative antidepressant, psychotherapy, or no treatment for depressive symptoms.\nData collection and analysis\nThe primary outcomes were changes in depression scores (proportion with a greater than 50% improvement, mean difference, and proportion who achieved complete remission) and change in seizure frequency (mean difference, proportion with a seizure recurrence, or episode of status epilepticus). Secondary outcomes included the number of participants who withdrew from the study and reasons for withdrawal, quality of life, cognitive functioning, and adverse events.\nTwo review authors independently extracted data for each included study. We then cross-checked the data extraction. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for RCTs, and the ROBINS-I for NRSIs. We presented binary outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 99% CIs for specific adverse events. We presented continuous outcomes as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies in the review (four RCTs and six NRSIs), with 626 participants with epilepsy and depression, examining the effects of antidepressants. One RCT was a multi-centre study comparing an antidepressant with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). The other three RCTs were single-centre studies comparing an antidepressant with an active control, placebo, or no treatment. The NRSIs reported on outcomes mainly in participants with focal epilepsy before and after treatment for depression with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI); one NRSI compared SSRIs to CBT.\nWe rated one RCT at low risk of bias, three RCTs at unclear risk of bias, and all six NRSIs at serious risk of bias. We were unable to conduct any meta-analysis of RCT data due to heterogeneity of treatment comparisons. We judged the certainty of evidence to be moderate to very low across comparisons, because single studies contributed limited outcome data, and because of risk of bias, particularly for NRSIs, which did not adjust for confounding variables.\nMore than 50% improvement in depressive symptoms ranged from 43% to 82% in RCTs, and from 24% to 97% in NRSIs, depending on the antidepressant given. Venlafaxine improved depressive symptoms by more than 50% compared to no treatment (mean difference (MD) -7.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) -11.52 to -3.66; 1 study, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence); the results between other comparisons were inconclusive. Two studies comparing SSRIs to CBT reported inconclusive results for the proportion of participants who achieved complete remission of depressive symptoms.\nSeizure frequency data did not suggest an increased risk of seizures with antidepressants compared to control treatments or baseline. Two studies measured quality of life; antidepressants did not appear to improve quality of life over control. No studies reported on cognitive functioning.\nTwo RCTs and one NRSI reported comparative data on adverse events; antidepressants did not appear to increase the severity or number of adverse events compared to controls. The NSRIs reported higher rates of withdrawals due to adverse events than lack of efficacy. Reported adverse events for antidepressants included nausea, dizziness, sedation, headache, gastrointestinal disturbance, insomnia, and sexual dysfunction.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExisting evidence on the effectiveness of antidepressants in treating depressive symptoms associated with epilepsy is still very limited. Rates of response to antidepressants were highly variable. There is low certainty evidence from one small RCT (64 participants) that venlafaxine may improve depressive symptoms more than no treatment; this evidence is limited to treatment between 8 and 16 weeks, and does not inform longer-term effects. Moderate to low evidence suggests neither an increase nor exacerbation of seizures with SSRIs.\nThere are no available comparative data to inform the choice of antidepressant drug or classes of drug for efficacy or safety for treating people with epilepsy and depression.\nRCTs of antidepressants utilising interventions from other treatment classes besides SSRIs, in large samples of patients with epilepsy and depression, are needed to better inform treatment policy. Future studies should assess interventions across a longer treatment duration to account for delayed onset of action, sustainability of treatment responses, and to provide a better understanding of the impact on seizure control.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Taking all the evidence into account, the review found that there is very limited evidence that antidepressants decrease depressive symptoms more than other treatments, placebo, or no treatment in epilepsy. There was limited information on the effect of antidepressants on seizure control, however in the studies reporting this outcome there did not appear to be any significant worsening of seizures. The evidence is current to February 2021." } ]
query-laysum	7412	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStatins are lipid-lowering agents with pleiotropic actions. Experts have proposed that in addition to improving the dyslipidaemia associated with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), statins may also exert other beneficial metabolic and endocrine effects, such as reducing testosterone levels. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of statin therapy in women with PCOS who are not actively trying to conceive.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHLs, and four ongoing trials registers on 7 November 2022. We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings and the reference lists of relevant trials for any additional studies, and we contacted experts in the field for any further ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of statin therapy in women with PCOS not actively trying to conceive. Eligible comparisons were statin versus placebo or no treatment, statin plus another agent versus the other agent alone, and statin versus another agent. We performed statistical analysis using Review Manager 5, and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methods.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology. Our primary outcomes were resumption of menstrual regularity and resumption of spontaneous ovulation. Our secondary outcomes were clinical and physiological measures including hirsutism, acne severity, testosterone levels, and adverse events.\nMain results\nSix RCTs fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. They included 396 women with PCOS who received six weeks, three months, or six months of treatment; 374 women completed the studies. Three studies evaluated the effects of simvastatin and three studies evaluated the effects of atorvastatin. We summarised the results of the studies under the following comparisons.\nStatins versus placebo (3 RCTs)\nOne trial measured resumption of menstrual regularity as menstrual cycle length in days. We are uncertain if statins compared with placebo shorten the mean length of the menstrual cycle (mean difference (MD) −2.00 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) −24.86 to 20.86; 37 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported resumption of spontaneous ovulation, improvement in hirsutism, or improvement in acne.\nWe are uncertain if statins compared with placebo reduce testosterone levels after six weeks (MD 0.06, 95% CI −0.72 to 0.84; 1 RCT, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence), after 3 months (MD −0.53, 95% CI −1.61 to 0.54; 2 RCTs, 64 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or after 6 months (MD 0.10, 95% CI −0.43 to 0.63; 1 RCT, 28 participants; very low-certainty evidence)\nTwo studies recorded adverse events, and neither reported significant differences between the groups.\nStatins plus metformin versus metformin alone (1 RCT)\nThe single RCT included in this comparison measured resumption of menstrual regularity as the number of spontaneous menses per six months. We are uncertain if statins plus metformin compared with metformin improves resumption of menstrual regularity (MD 0.60 menses, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.12; 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report resumption of spontaneous ovulation.\nWe are uncertain if statins plus metformin compared with metformin alone improves hirsutism measured using the Ferriman-Gallwey score (MD −0.16, 95% CI −0.91 to 0.59; 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence), acne severity measured on a scale of 0 to 3 (MD −0.31, 95% CI −0.67 to 0.05; 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or testosterone levels (MD −0.03, 95% CI −0.37 to 0.31; 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that no significant adverse events occurred.\nStatins plus oral contraceptive pill versus oral contraceptive pill alone (1 RCT)\nThe single RCT included in this comparison did not report resumption of menstrual regularity or spontaneous ovulation. We are uncertain if statins plus the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) improves hirsutism compared with OCP alone (MD −0.12, 95% CI −0.41 to 0.17; 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report improvement in acne severity. We are also uncertain if statins plus OCP compared with OCP alone reduces testosterone levels, because the certainty of the evidence was very low (MD −0.82, 95% CI −1.38 to −0.26; 48 participants). The study reported that no participants experienced significant side effects.\nStatins versus metformin (2 RCTs)\nWe are uncertain if statins improve menstrual regularity compared with metformin (number of spontaneous menses per six months) compared to metformin (MD 0.50 menses, 95% CI −0.05 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 61 participants, very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported resumption of spontaneous ovulation.\nWe are uncertain if statins compared with metformin reduce hirsutism measured using the Ferriman-Gallwey score (MD −0.26, 95% CI −0.97 to 0.45; 1 RCT, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence), acne severity measured on a scale of 0 to 3 (MD −0.18, 95% CI −0.53 to 0.17; 1 RCT, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or testosterone levels (MD −0.24, 95% CI −0.58 to 0.10; 1 RCT, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nBoth trials reported that no significant adverse events had occurred.\nStatins versus oral contraceptive pill plus flutamide (1 RCT)\nAccording to the study report, no participants experienced any significant side effects. There were no available data for any other main outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence for all main outcomes of this review was of very low certainty. Due to the limited evidence, we are uncertain if statins compared with placebo, or statins plus metformin compared with metformin alone, improve resumption of menstrual regularity. The trial evaluating statin plus OCP versus OCP alone reported neither of our primary outcomes. No other studies reported resumption of spontaneous ovulation. We are uncertain if statins improve hirsutism, acne severity, or testosterone. All trials that measured adverse events reported no significant differences between the groups.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence is current up to 7 November 2022." } ]
query-laysum	7413	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nHealthcare workers can suffer from work-related stress as a result of an imbalance of demands, skills and social support at work. This may lead to stress, burnout and psychosomatic problems, and deterioration of service provision. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was last updated in 2015, which has been split into this review and a review on organisational-level interventions.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of stress-reduction interventions targeting individual healthcare workers compared to no intervention, wait list, placebo, no stress-reduction intervention or another type of stress-reduction intervention in reducing stress symptoms.\nSearch methods\nWe used the previous version of the review as one source of studies (search date: November 2013). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and a trials register from 2013 up to February 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of stress interventions directed at healthcare workers. We included only interventions targeted at individual healthcare workers aimed at reducing stress symptoms.\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We categorised interventions into ones that:\n1. focus one’s attention on the (modification of the) experience of stress (thoughts, feelings, behaviour);\n2. focus one’s attention away from the experience of stress by various means of psychological disengagement (e.g. relaxing, exercise);\n3. alter work-related risk factors on an individual level; and ones that\n4. combine two or more of the above.\nThe crucial outcome measure was stress symptoms measured with various self-reported questionnaires such as the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), measured at short term (up to and including three months after the intervention ended), medium term (> 3 to 12 months after the intervention ended), and long term follow-up (> 12 months after the intervention ended).\nMain results\nThis is the second update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2006, Issue 4. This review update includes 89 new studies, bringing the total number of studies in the current review to 117 with a total of 11,119 participants randomised.\nThe number of participants per study arm was ≥ 50 in 32 studies. The most important risk of bias was the lack of blinding of participants.\nFocus on the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention\nFifty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is on the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.23; 41 RCTs; 3645 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.14; 19 RCTs; 1851 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD of the short-term result translates back to 4.6 points fewer on the MBI-emotional exhaustion scale (MBI-EE, a scale from 0 to 54). The evidence is very uncertain (one RCT; 68 participants, very low-certainty evidence) about the long-term effect on stress symptoms of focusing one's attention on the experience of stress.\nFocus away from the experience of stress versus no intervention/wait list/placebo/no stress-reduction intervention\nForty-two studies studied an intervention in which one's focus is away from the experience of stress. Overall, such interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms in the short term (SMD -0.55, 95 CI -0.70 to -0.40; 35 RCTs; 2366 participants; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (SMD -0.41 95% CI -0.79 to -0.03; 6 RCTs; 427 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD on the short term translates back to 6.8 fewer points on the MBI-EE. No studies reported the long-term effect.\nFocus on work-related, individual-level factors versus no intervention/no stress-reduction intervention\nSeven studies studied an intervention in which the focus is on altering work-related factors. The evidence is very uncertain about the short-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; three RCTs; 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and medium-term effects and long-term effects (no pooled effect estimate; two RCTs; 152 participants, and one RCT; 161 participants, very low-certainty evidence) of this type of stress management intervention.\nA combination of individual-level interventions versus no intervention/wait list/no stress-reduction intervention\nSeventeen studies studied a combination of interventions. In the short-term, this type of intervention may result in a reduction in stress symptoms (SMD -0.67 95%, CI -0.95 to -0.39; 15 RCTs; 1003 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to 8.2 fewer points on the MBI-EE. On the medium term, a combination of individual-level interventions may result in a reduction in stress symptoms, but the evidence does not exclude no effect (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.00; 6 RCTs; 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the long term effects of a combination of interventions on stress symptoms (one RCT, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nFocus on stress versus other intervention type\nThree studies compared focusing on stress versus focusing away from stress and one study a combination of interventions versus focusing on stress. The evidence is very uncertain about which type of intervention is better or if their effect is similar.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur review shows that there may be an effect on stress reduction in healthcare workers from individual-level stress interventions, whether they focus one's attention on or away from the experience of stress. This effect may last up to a year after the end of the intervention. A combination of interventions may be beneficial as well, at least in the short term. Long-term effects of individual-level stress management interventions remain unknown. The same applies for interventions on (individual-level) work-related risk factors.\nThe bias assessment of the studies in this review showed the need for methodologically better-designed and executed studies, as nearly all studies suffered from poor reporting of the randomisation procedures, lack of blinding of participants and lack of trial registration. Better-designed trials with larger sample sizes are required to increase the certainty of the evidence. Last, there is a need for more studies on interventions which focus on work-related risk factors.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is stress?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There is currently no clear definition of (work-related) stress. This review is about healthcare workers with low levels of stress to moderate distress and burnout, which might lead to depression and anxiety but does not have to. People with stress can experience physical symptoms like headaches, muscle tension or pain, but also mental symptoms, like impaired concentration. They can also have behavioural problems (like conflicts with other people) and emotional problems (like emotional instability)." } ]
query-laysum	7414	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAccording to international guidelines and literature, all patients with intermittent claudication should receive an initial treatment of cardiovascular risk modification, lifestyle coaching, and supervised exercise therapy. In the literature, supervised exercise therapy often consists of treadmill or track walking. However, alternative modes of exercise therapy have been described and yielded similar results to walking. This raises the following question: which exercise mode produces the most favourable results? This is the first update of the original review published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of alternative modes of supervised exercise therapy compared to traditional walking exercise in patients with intermittent claudication.\nSearch methods\nThe 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 4 March 2019. We also undertook reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. No language restriction was applied.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel-group randomised controlled trials comparing alternative modes of exercise training or combinations of exercise modes with a control group of supervised walking exercise in patients with clinically determined intermittent claudication. The supervised walking programme needed to be supervised at least twice a week for a consecutive six weeks of training.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for each study. As we included studies with different treadmill test protocols and different measuring units (metres, minutes, or seconds), the standardised mean difference (SMD) approach was used for summary statistics of mean walking distance (MWD) and pain-free walking distance (PFWD). Summary estimates were obtained for all outcome measures using a random-effects model. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nFor this update, five additional studies were included, making a total of 10 studies that randomised a total of 527 participants with intermittent claudication (IC). The alternative modes of exercise therapy included cycling, lower-extremity resistance training, upper-arm ergometry, Nordic walking, and combinations of exercise modes. Besides randomised controlled trials, two quasi-randomised trials were included. Overall risk of bias in included studies varied from high to low. According to GRADE criteria, the certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low, due to the relatively small sample sizes, clinical inconsistency, and inclusion of three studies with risk of bias concerns.\nOverall, comparing alternative exercise modes versus walking showed no clear differences for MWD at 12 weeks (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to 0.27; P = 0.95; 6 studies; 274 participants; low-certainty evidence); or at the end of training (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.11; P = 0.32; 9 studies; 412 participants; low-certainty evidence). Similarly, no clear differences were detected in PFWD at 12 weeks (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.25; P = 0.97; 5 studies; 249 participants; low-certainty evidence); or at the end of training (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.17; P = 0.59; 8 studies, 382 participants; low-certainty evidence). Four studies reported on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) and three studies reported on functional impairment. As the studies used different measurements, meta-analysis was only possible for the walking impairment questionnaire (WIQ) distance score, which demonstrated little or no difference between groups (MD -5.52, 95% CI -17.41 to 6.36; P = 0.36; 2 studies; 96 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review found no clear difference between alternative exercise modes and supervised walking exercise in improving the maximum and pain-free walking distance in patients with intermittent claudication. The certainty of this evidence was judged to be low, due to clinical inconsistency, small sample size and risk of bias concerns. The findings of this review indicate that alternative exercise modes may be useful when supervised walking exercise is not an option. More RCTs with adequate methodological quality and sufficient power are needed to provide solid evidence for comparisons between each alternative exercise mode and the current standard of supervised treadmill walking. Future RCTs should investigate outcome measures on walking behaviour, physical activity, cardiovascular risk, and HR-QoL, using standardised testing methods and reporting of outcomes to allow meaningful comparison across studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What this means\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review suggests that supervised walking and other types of supervised exercise programmes may have similar effects on how far people with intermittent claudication can walk, and how far they can walk without pain. However, our confidence in this finding is limited, mainly because:\n* the studies we reviewed were small;\n* the types of supervised walking exercises that were evaluated varied across studies; and\n* concerns about how some studies were conducted.\nFuture studies that use robust methods and include large numbers of people are needed to provide stronger evidence for comparing different types of supervised exercise programmes for intermittent claudication." } ]
query-laysum	7415	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMany media are commercially available for culturing pre-implantation human embryos in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles. It is unknown which culture medium leads to the best success rates after ART.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the safety and effectiveness of different human pre-implantation embryo culture media in used for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the National Research Register, the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Register and the NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination databases from January 1985 to March 2015. We also examined the reference lists of all known primary studies, review articles, citation lists of relevant publications and abstracts of major scientific meetings.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials which randomised women, oocytes or embryos and compared any two commercially available culture media for human pre-implantation embryos in an IVF or ICSI programme.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data. We sought additional information from the authors if necessary. We assessed the quality of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. The primary review outcome was live birth or ongoing pregnancy.\nMain results\nWe included 32 studies in this review. Seventeen studies randomised women (total 3666), three randomised cycles (total 1018) and twelve randomised oocytes (over 15,230). It was not possible to pool any of the data because each study compared different culture media.\nOnly seven studies reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy. Four of these studies found no evidence of a difference between the media compared, for either day three or day five embryo transfer. The data from the fifth study did not appear reliable.\nSix studies reported clinical pregnancy rate. One of these found a difference between the media compared, suggesting that for cleavage-stage embryo transfer, Quinn's Advantage was associated with higher clinical pregnancy rates than G5 (odds ratio (OR) 1.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12 to 2.16; 692 women). This study was available only as an abstract and the quality of the evidence was low.\nWith regards to adverse effects, three studies reported multiple pregnancies and six studies reported miscarriage. None of them found any evidence of a difference between the culture media used. None of the studies reported on the health of offspring.\nMost studies (22/32) failed to report their source of funding and none described their methodology in adequate detail. The overall quality of the evidence was rated as very low for nearly all comparisons, the main limitations being imprecision and poor reporting of study methods.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAn optimal embryo culture medium is important for embryonic development and subsequently the success of IVF or ICSI treatment. There has been much controversy about the most appropriate embryo culture medium. Numerous studies have been performed, but no two studies compared the same culture media and none of them found any evidence of a difference between the culture media used. We conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of any specific culture medium. Properly designed and executed randomised trials are necessary.\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": "There was very low-quality evidence for nearly all comparisons, the main limitations being imprecision and poor reporting of study methods." } ]
query-laysum	7416	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nProcedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is used frequently in the emergency department (ED) to facilitate painful procedures and interventions. Capnography, a monitoring modality widely used in operating room and endoscopy suite settings, is being used more frequently in the ED setting with the goal of reducing cardiopulmonary adverse events. As opposed to settings outside the ED, there is currently no consensus on whether the addition of capnography to standard monitoring modalities reduces adverse events in the ED setting.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether capnography in addition to standard monitoring (pulse oximetry, blood pressure and cardiac monitoring) is more effective than standard monitoring alone to prevent cardiorespiratory adverse events (e.g. oxygen desaturation, hypotension, emesis, and pulmonary aspiration) in ED patients undergoing PSA.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, Issue 8), and MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL to 9 August 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials of ED patients requiring PSA with no language restrictions. We searched meta-registries (www.controlled-trials.com, www.clinicalstudyresults.org, and clinicaltrials.gov) for ongoing trials (February 2016). We contacted the primary authors of included studies as well as scientific advisors of capnography device manufacturers to identify unpublished studies (February 2016). We handsearched conference abstracts of four organizations from 2010 to 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included any RCT or quasi-randomized trial comparing capnography and standard monitoring to standard monitoring alone for ED patients requiring PSA.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and assessment of methodological quality for the 'Risk of bias' tables. An independent researcher extracted data for any included studies that our authors were involved in. We contacted authors of included studies for incomplete data when applicable. We used Review Manager 5 to combine data and calculate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both random-effects and fixed-effect models.\nMain results\nWe identified three trials (κ = 1.00) involving 1272 participants. Comparing the capnography group to the standard monitoring group, there were no differences in the rates of oxygen desaturation (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.63; n = 1272, 3 trials; moderate quality evidence) and hypotension (RR 2.36, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.69; n = 986, 1 trial; moderate quality evidence). There was only one episode of emesis recorded without significant difference between the groups (RR 3.10, 95% CI 0.13 to 75.88, n = 986, 1 trial; moderate quality evidence). The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was moderate with downgrades primarily due to heterogeneity and reporting bias.\nThere were no differences in the rate of airway interventions performed (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.69; n = 1272, 3 trials; moderate quality evidence). In the subgroup analysis, we found a higher rate of airway interventions for adults in the capnography group (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.79; n = 1118, 2 trials; moderate quality evidence) with a number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome of 12. Although statistical heterogeneity was reduced, there was moderate quality of evidence due to outcome definition heterogeneity and limited reporting bias. None of the studies reported recovery time.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a lack of convincing evidence that the addition of capnography to standard monitoring in ED PSA reduces the rate of clinically significant adverse events. Evidence was deemed to be of moderate quality due to population and outcome definition heterogeneity and limited reporting bias. Our review was limited by the small number of clinical trials in this setting.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There was no difference in heart, lung, or airway complications with the addition of capnography. When only adults were studied, healthcare providers performed more manoeuvres to help the patient breathe when capnography was used. This could be due to false alarms." } ]
query-laysum	7417	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNeuropathic pain is a consequence of damage to the central nervous system (CNS), for example, cerebrovascular accident, multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury, or peripheral nervous system (PNS), for example, painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), or surgery. Evidence suggests that people suffering from neuropathic pain are likely to seek alternative modes of pain relief such as herbal medicinal products due to adverse events brought about by current pharmacological agents used to treat neuropathic pain. This review includes studies in which participants were treated with herbal medicinal products (topically or ingested) who had experienced neuropathic pain for at least three months.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and effectiveness of herbal medicinal products or preparations for neuropathic pain, and the adverse events associated with their use.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED to March 2018. We identified additional studies from the reference lists of the retrieved papers. We also searched trials registries for ongoing trials and we contacted experts in the field for relevant data in terms of published, unpublished or ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (including cross-over designs) of double-blind design, assessing efficacy of herbal treatments for neuropathic pain compared to placebo, no intervention or any other active comparator. Participants were 18 years and above and had been suffering from one or more neuropathic pain conditions, for three months or more.\nWe applied no restrictions to language or gender. We excluded studies monitoring effects of isolated, single chemicals derived from the plant or synthetic chemicals based on constituents of the plant, if they were not administered at a concentration naturally present within the plant.\nWe excluded studies monitoring the effects of traditional Asian medicine and Cannabinoids as well as studies looking at headache or migraine as these treatments and conditions are addressed in distinct reviews.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). The primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief of 30%, or 50%, or greater, and participant-reported global impression of clinical change (PGIC). We also collected information on adverse events. We assessed evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nWe included two studies (128 participants). Both diabetic neuropathy and non-diabetic neuropathic pain conditions were investigated across these two studies.\nTwo herbal medicinal products, namely nutmeg (applied topically as a 125 mL spray for four weeks, containing mace oil 2%, nutmeg oil 14%, methyl salicylate 6%, menthol 6%, coconut oil and alcohol) and St John's wort (taken in capsule form containing 900 μg total hypericin each, taken three times daily, giving a total concentration of 2700 mg for five weeks). Both studies allowed the use of concurrent analgesia.\nBoth reported at least one pain-related outcome but we could not carry out meta-analysis of effectiveness due to heterogeneity between the primary outcomes and could not draw any conclusions of effect. Other outcomes included PGIC, adverse events and withdrawals. There were no data for participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater or PGIC (moderate and substantial) outcomes.\nWhen looking at participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater over baseline, we observed no evidence of a difference (P = 0.64) in response to nutmeg versus placebo (RR 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.85; 48.6% vs 43.2%). We downgraded the evidence for this outcome to very low quality.\nWe observed no change between placebo and nutmeg treatment when looking at secondary pain outcomes. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain reduction (0 to 100, where 0 = no pain reduction), were 44 for both nutmeg and placebo with standard deviations of 21.5 and 26.5 respectively. There was no evidence of a difference (P = 0.09 to 0.33) in total pain score in response to St John’s wort compared to placebo, as there was only a reduction of 1 point when looking at median differences in change from baseline on a 0 to 10-point numeric rating scale.\nThere was a total of five withdrawals out of 91 participants (5%) in the treatment groups compared to six of 91 (6.5%) in the placebo groups, whilst adverse events were the same for both the treatment and placebo groups.\nWe judged neither study as having a low risk of bias. We attributed risk of bias to small study size and incomplete outcome data leading to attrition bias. We downgraded the evidence to very low quality for all primary and secondary outcomes reported in this review. We downgraded the quality of the evidence twice due to very serious limitations in study quality (due to small study size and attrition bias) and downgraded a further level due to indirectness as the included studies only measured outcomes at short-term time points. The results from this review should be treated with scepticism as we have very little confidence in the effect estimate.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether nutmeg or St John's wort has any meaningful efficacy in neuropathic pain conditions.\nThe quality of the current evidence raises serious uncertainties about the estimates of effect observed, therefore, we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.\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 from studies using four levels: very low, low, moderate, or high. Very low-quality evidence means that we are very uncertain about the results. High-quality evidence means that we are very confident.\nOnly two small studies met this review’s search criteria. Neither provided any high-quality evidence for either possible benefits or harms. We judged the evidence to be of very low quality. Thus, results from the studies contained in this review are very uncertain and prevent any meaningful conclusions. Larger, high-quality studies are needed to assess accurately if herbal products are of any benefit or have the potential to harm when used to treat adults with neuropathic pain." } ]
query-laysum	7418	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a common adverse effect in children with cancer. Due to the high relative risk of infections and infectious complications, standard care for children with cancer and febrile neutropenia consists of routine hospitalization and parenteral administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, there are less serious causes of febrile neutropenia; in a subgroup of these children, lengthy in-hospital treatment might be unnecessary. Various research groups have studied the adjustment of standard care to shorten in-hospital treatment for children with cancer and febrile neutropenia at low risk for bacterial infections. However, most of these studies were not done in a randomized matter.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate whether early discharge (mean/median of less than five days) from in-hospital treatment was not inferior to non-early discharge (mean/median of five days or more) and whether very early discharge (mean/median of less than 24 hours) was not inferior to early discharge, non-early discharge, or a combination of these, in children with cancer and febrile neutropenia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2015, issue 11), MEDLINE/PubMed (from 1945 to December 2015), EMBASE/Ovid (from 1980 to December 2015), the reference lists of relevant articles and review articles, and various conference proceedings (dependent on availability from 2005 to 2010 to 2013 to 2015). We scanned the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Register, the National Institute of Health Register for ongoing trials, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 9 January 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials in which children with cancer and febrile neutropenia were divided in groups with different times of discharge.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods of Cochrane and its Childhood Cancer Group. Two independent review authors performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We entered data extracted from the included studies into Review Manager 5 and undertook analyses according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nWe included two randomized controlled trials assessing very early, early, non-early (or a combination of these) discharge in children with cancer and febrile neutropenia. We graded the evidence as low quality; we downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. One study, Santolaya 2004, consisted of 149 randomized low-risk episodes and compared early discharge (mean/median of less than five days) to non-early discharge (mean/median of five days or more). This study found no clear evidence of difference in treatment failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 3.50, P value = 0.89 for rehospitalization or adjustment of antimicrobial treatment, or both; Fischer's exact P value = 0.477 for death) or duration of treatment (mean difference -0.3 days, 95% CI -1.22 to 0.62, P value = 0.52 for any antimicrobial treatment; mean difference -0.5 days, 95% CI -1.36 to 0.36, P value = 0.25 for intravenous antimicrobial treatment; mean difference 0.2 days, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.91, P value = 0.58 for oral antimicrobial treatment). Costs were lower in the early discharge group (mean difference USD -265, 95% CI USD -403.14 to USD -126.86, P value = 0.0002). The second included study, Brack 2012, consisted of 62 randomized low-risk episodes and compared very early discharge (mean/median of less than 24 hours) to early discharge (mean/median of less than five days). This study also found no clear evidence of difference in treatment failure (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.89, P value = 0.34 for rehospitalization or adjustment of antimicrobial treatment (or both); Fischer's exact P value = 0.557 for death). Regarding duration of treatment, median duration of intravenous antimicrobial treatment was shorter in the very early discharge group (Wilcoxon's P value ≤ 0.001, stated in the study) and median duration of oral antimicrobial treatment was shorter in the early discharge group (Wilcoxon's P ≤ 0.001, stated in the study) as compared to one another. However, there was no clear evidence of difference in median duration of any antimicrobial treatment (Wilcoxon's P value = 0.34, stated in the study). Costs were not assessed in this study. Neither of the included studies assessed quality of life. Meta-analysis was not possible as the included studies assessed different discharge moments and used different risk stratification models.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVery limited data were available regarding the safety of early discharge compared to non-early discharge from in-hospital treatment in children with cancer and febrile neutropenia and a low risk for invasive infection. The absence of clear evidence of differences in both studies could be due to lack of power.\nEvidently, there are still profound gaps regarding very early and early discharge in children with cancer and febrile neutropenia. Future studies that assess this subject should have a large sample size and aim to establish uniform and objective criteria regarding the identification of a low-risk febrile neutropenic episode.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "For both reported comparisons, the quality of the evidence was low. The included studies were relatively small with a low number of participants, thus it was possible that the absence of clear evidence of differences in the included studies could be due to, for example, the lack of power. Unfortunately, it was not possible to pool data in the two studies." } ]
query-laysum	7419	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFor people with cystic fibrosis and advanced pulmonary damage, lung transplantation is an available and viable option. However, graft rejection is an important potential consequence after lung transplantation. Immunosuppressive therapy is needed to prevent episodes of graft rejection and thus subsequently reduce morbidity and mortality in this population. There are a number of classes of immunosuppressive drugs which act on different components of the immune system. There is considerable variability in the use of immunosuppressive agents after lung transplantation in cystic fibrosis. While much of the research in immunosuppressive drug therapy has focused on the general population of lung transplant recipients, little is known about the comparative effectiveness and safety of these agents in people with cystic fibrosis. This is the final update of a previously published review; no longer being updated due to a lack of research in the area.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of individual drugs or combinations of drugs compared to placebo or other individual drugs or combinations of drugs in preventing rejection following lung transplantation in people with cystic fibrosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register and scanned references of the potentially eligible study. We also searched the www.clinicaltrials.gov registry and the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to obtain information on unpublished and ongoing studies.\nDate of latest search: 29 May 2018.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised studies.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently assessed the studies identified from our searches for inclusion in the review. If we had found eligible studies to include in the review, we planned to independently extract data and assess the risk of bias. We planned to use GRADE to summarize our results through a summary of findings table for each comparison we could present in the review.\nMain results\nWhile five studies addressed the interventions of interest, we did not include them in the review because the investigators of the studies did not report any information specific to people with cystic fibrosis. Our attempts to obtain this information have not yet been successful.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe lack of currently available evidence makes it impossible to draw conclusions about the comparative efficacy and safety of the various immunosuppressive drugs among people with cystic fibrosis after lung transplantation. A 2013 Cochrane Review comparing tacrolimus with cyclosporine in all lung transplant recipients (not restricted to those with cystic fibrosis) reported no significant difference in mortality and risk of acute rejection. However, tacrolimus use was associated with lower risk of broncholitis obliterans syndrome and arterial hypertension and higher risk of diabetes mellitus. It should be noted that this wider review contained only a small number of included studies (n = 3) with a high risk of bias. Additional randomised studies are required to provide evidence for the benefit and safety of the use of immunosuppressive therapy among people with cystic fibrosis after lung transplantation.\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": "Lung transplantation is an available and realistic treatment option for people with cystic fibrosis whose lungs are severely damaged. However, as a natural defence mechanism, the body recognises a transplanted lung as foreign and activates the immune system to reject it. This is known as graft rejection. To prevent this, drugs are needed to suppress the immune system after lung transplantation. There are several different types of such drugs that act by suppressing different components of the immune system. Much of the research on such drugs has focused on all people who have had a lung transplant and not specifically on those with cystic fibrosis. Currently, clinicians do not all agree on a common way of using anti-rejection drugs in people with cystic fibrosis after they have received a lung transplant." } ]
query-laysum	7420	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 11 March 2020. Vaccine development and deployment were swiftly prioritised as a method to manage and control disease spread. The development of an effective vaccine relies on people's participation in randomised trials. Recruitment to vaccine trials is particularly challenging as it involves healthy volunteers who may have concerns around the potential risks and benefits associated with rapidly developed vaccines.\nObjectives\nTo explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was June 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with an identifiable qualitative component. We included studies that explored the perspectives of adults aged 18 years or older who were invited to take part in vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.\nData collection and analysis\nWe assessed the title, abstracts and full texts identified by the search. We used a sampling frame to identify data-rich studies that represented a range of diseases and geographical spread. We used QSR NVivo to manage extracted data. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool for qualitative studies. We used the 'best-fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence from our included studies. We then used the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) assessment to assess our confidence in each finding and develop implications for practice.\nMain results\nWe included 34 studies in our review. Most studies related to HIV vaccine trials. The other studies related to Ebola virus, tuberculosis, Zika virus and COVID-19. We developed 20 key findings, under three broad themes (with seven subthemes), that described the factors that people consider when deciding whether to take part in a vaccine trial for a pandemic or epidemic disease.\nOur GRADE-CERQual confidence was high in nine of the key findings, moderate in 10 key findings and low in one key finding. The main reason for downgrading review findings were concerns regarding the relevance and adequacy of the underlying data. As a result of the over-representation of HIV studies, our GRADE-CERQual assessment of some findings was downgraded in terms of relevance because the views described may not reflect those of people regarding vaccine trials for other pandemic or epidemic diseases. Adequacy relates to the degree of richness and quantity of data supporting a review finding. Moderate concerns about adequacy resulted in a downgrading of some review findings.\nSome factors were considered to be under the control of the trial team. These included how trial information was communicated and the inclusion of people in the community to help with trial information dissemination. Aspects of trial design were also considered under control of the trial team and included convenience of participation, provision of financial incentives and access to additional support services for those taking part in the trial.\nOther factors influencing people's decision to take part could be personal, from family, friends or wider society. From a personal perceptive, people had concerns about vaccine side effects, vaccine efficacy and possible impact on their daily lives (carer responsibilities, work, etc.). People were also influenced by their families, and the impact participation may have on relationships. The fear of stigma from society influenced the decision to take part. Also, from a societal perspective, the level of trust in governments' involvement in research and trial may influence a person's decision.\nFinally, the perceived rewards, both personal and societal, were influencing factors on the decision to participate. Personal rewards included access to a vaccine, improved health and improved disease knowledge, and a return to normality in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. Potential societal rewards included helping the community and contributing to science, often motivated by the memories of family and friends who had died from the disease.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review identifies many of the factors that influence a person's decision to take part in a vaccine trial, and these reflect findings from reviews that examine trials more broadly. However, we also recognise some factors that become more important in connection with a vaccine trial in the context of a pandemic or epidemic. These factors include the potential stigma of taking part, the possible adverse effects of a vaccine, the added motivation for helping society, the role of community leaders in trial dissemination, and the level of trust placed in governments and companies developing vaccines. These specific influences need to be considered by trial teams when designing, and communicating about, vaccine trials in the context of a pandemic or epidemic.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We identified 34 studies for this review, but 26 were related to HIV. This raised concerns about the relevance of the data to other diseases. In addition, we had concerns about the quality of the data for some findings. Because of the diversity of the participants in individual studies, we cannot make any inferences by participant types (for example, participants' backgrounds, gender, or social standing or class)." } ]
query-laysum	7421	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPhysicians often prescribe opioids for pain in the acute care setting. Nausea and vomiting are well-described adverse events, occurring in over one-third of patients. Prophylactic antiemetics may be one option to reduce opioid-associated nausea and vomiting. However, these medications also have their own adverse effects, so it is important to understand their efficacy and safety prior to routine use. This is a review of randomized controlled trials comparing prophylactic antiemetics versus placebo or standard care for preventing opioid-associated nausea and vomiting.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of prophylactic antiemetics for nausea and vomiting in adults (aged 16 years or older) receiving intravenous opioids in the acute care setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID) from inception to January 2022, and Google Scholar (17 January 2022). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and screened reference lists.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials of prophylactic antiemetics versus placebo or standard care in adults prior to receiving an intravenous opioid.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (MG, JNC) independently determined the eligibility of each study according to the inclusion criteria. Two review authors (MG, GDP) then independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were the occurrence of nausea, vomiting, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included nausea severity, number of vomiting episodes, and number of participants requiring antiemetic rescue therapy. We presented outcomes as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (e.g. presence of vomiting, presence of nausea, number of participants requiring rescue medication, adverse events) and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference for continuous data (e.g. number of vomiting episodes, nausea severity) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nWe included three studies involving 527 participants (187 women and 340 men) with a mean age of 42 years. All studies used intravenous metoclopramide (10 mg) as the intervention and a placebo for the comparator. No studies assessed any other antiemetic or compared the intervention to standard care.\nCompared to placebo, metoclopramide did not reduce vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.26 to 5.32; low-certainty evidence) or nausea (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.15 to 2.03; low-certainty evidence) and there was no difference in adverse events (RR 2.34, 95% CI 0.47 to 11.61; low-certainty evidence). No data were available regarding the number of vomiting episodes. Metoclopramide did reduce the severity of nausea compared with placebo (MD −0.49, 95% CI −0.75 to −0.23; low-certainty evidence) but did not reduce the need for rescue medication (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.16; low-certainty evidence).\nTwo studies were at unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation, one for blinding of outcome assessors, one for incomplete outcome data, and two for selective reporting. The studies were at low risk of bias for all remaining components.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was no evidence that prophylactic metoclopramide affected the risk of vomiting, nausea, or the need for rescue medication when provided prior to intravenous opioids in the acute care setting. There was a clinically insignificant difference in nausea severity when comparing prophylactic metoclopramide with placebo. Overall, the evidence was of low certainty. Future research could better delineate the effects of prophylactic antiemetics on specific populations, and new studies are needed to evaluate the use of other prophylactic antiemetic agents, for which there were no data.\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": "This review looks at whether taking antiemetics (medications to treat or prevent nausea and vomiting) before receiving an intravenous opioid reduces the risk of experiencing nausea and vomiting as side effects." } ]
query-laysum	7422	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a degenerative condition of the back of the eye that occurs in people over the age of 50 years. Antioxidants may prevent cellular damage in the retina by reacting with free radicals that are produced in the process of light absorption. Higher dietary levels of antioxidant vitamins and minerals may reduce the risk of progression of AMD. This is the third update of the review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements on the progression of AMD in people with AMD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, one other database, and three trials registers, most recently on 29 November 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared antioxidant vitamin or mineral supplementation to placebo or no intervention, in people with AMD.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methods expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 26 studies conducted in the USA, Europe, China, and Australia. These studies enroled 11,952 people aged 65 to 75 years and included slightly more women (on average 56% women). We judged the studies that contributed data to the review to be at low or unclear risk of bias.\nThirteen studies compared multivitamins with control in people with early and intermediate AMD. Most evidence came from the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) in the USA. People taking antioxidant vitamins were less likely to progress to late AMD (odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.90; 3 studies, 2445 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In people with early AMD, who are at low risk of progression, this means there would be approximately four fewer cases of progression to late AMD for every 1000 people taking vitamins (one fewer to six fewer cases). In people with intermediate AMD at higher risk of progression, this corresponds to approximately 78 fewer cases of progression for every 1000 people taking vitamins (26 fewer to 126 fewer). AREDS also provided evidence of a lower risk of progression for both neovascular AMD (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence) and geographic atrophy (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), and a lower risk of losing 3 or more lines of visual acuity (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from one study of 110 people suggested higher quality of life scores (measured with the Visual Function Questionnaire) in treated compared with non-treated people after 24 months (mean difference (MD) 12.30, 95% CI 4.24 to 20.36). In exploratory subgroup analyses in the follow-on study to AREDS (AREDS2), replacing beta-carotene with lutein/zeaxanthin gave hazard ratios (HR) of 0.82 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.96), 0.78 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.94), 0.94 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.26), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.03) for progression to late AMD, neovascular AMD, geographic atrophy, and vision loss, respectively.\nSix studies compared lutein (with or without zeaxanthin) with placebo and one study compared a multivitamin including lutein/zeaxanthin with multivitamin alone. The duration of supplementation and follow-up ranged from six months to five years. Most evidence came from the AREDS2 study in the USA; almost all participants in AREDS2 also took the original AREDS supplementation formula. People taking lutein/zeaxanthin may have similar or slightly reduced risk of progression to late AMD (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.01), neovascular AMD (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02), and geographic atrophy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05) compared with control (1 study, 4176 participants, 6891 eyes; low-certainty evidence). A similar risk of progression to visual loss of 15 or more letters was seen in the lutein/zeaxanthin and control groups (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; 6656 eyes; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life (Visual Function Questionnaire) was similar between groups (MD 1.21, 95% CI -2.59 to 5.01; 2 studies, 308 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nOne study in Australia randomised 1204 people to vitamin E or placebo with four years of follow-up; 19% of participants had AMD. The number of late AMD events was low (N = 7) and the estimate of effect was uncertain (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.31 to 6.05; very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of any effect of treatment on visual loss (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.47; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on neovascular AMD, geographic atrophy, or quality of life.\nFive studies compared zinc with placebo. Evidence largely drawn from the largest study (AREDS) found a lower progression to late AMD over six years (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.98; 3 studies, 3790 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), neovascular AMD (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.93; moderate-certainty evidence), geographic atrophy (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.10; moderate-certainty evidence), or visual loss (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 2 studies, 3791 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no data on quality of life. Gastrointestinal symptoms were the main reported adverse effect. In AREDS, zinc was associated with a higher risk of genitourinary problems in men, but no difference was seen between high- and low-dose zinc groups in AREDS2.\nMost studies were too small to detect rare adverse effects. Data from larger studies (AREDS/AREDS2) suggested there may be little or no effect on mortality with multivitamin (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.25; low-certainty evidence) or lutein/zeaxanthin supplementation (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence), but confirmed the increased risk of lung cancer with beta-carotene, mostly in former smokers.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-certainty evidence suggests that antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplementation (AREDS: vitamin C, E, beta-carotene, and zinc) probably slows down progression to late AMD. People with intermediate AMD have a higher chance of benefiting from antioxidant supplements because their risk of progression is higher than people with early AMD. Although low-certainty evidence suggested little effect with lutein/zeaxanthin alone compared with placebo, exploratory subgroup analyses from one large American study support the view that lutein/zeaxanthin may be a suitable replacement for the beta-carotene used in the original AREDS formula.\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": "- Taking an antioxidant multivitamin supplement may slow down the progression of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), an eye disease that blurs your central vision.\n- People with intermediate AMD have a higher chance of benefiting from antioxidant supplements because their risk of progression is higher than for people with early AMD.\n- Although vitamin supplements are generally regarded as safe, the studies included in this review did not provide good evidence as to safety as they were generally too small." } ]
query-laysum	7423	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAgeing has a degenerative effect on the skin, leaving it more vulnerable to damage. Hygiene and emollient interventions may help maintain skin integrity in older people in hospital and residential care settings; however, at present, most care is based on \"tried and tested\" practice, rather than on evidence.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of hygiene and emollient interventions for maintaining skin integrity in older people in hospital and residential care settings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL, up to January 2019. We also searched five trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing hygiene and emollient interventions versus placebo, no intervention, or standard practices for older people aged ≥ 60 years in hospital or residential care settings.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were frequency of skin damage, for example, complete loss of integrity (tears or ulceration) or partial loss of integrity (fissuring), and side effects. Secondary outcomes included transepidermal water loss (TEWL), stratum corneum hydration (SCH), erythema, and clinical scores of dryness or itch. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included six trials involving 1598 residential care home residents; no included trial had a hospital setting. Most participants had a mean age of 80+ years; when specified, more women were recruited than men. Two studies included only people with diagnosed dry skin. Studies were conducted in Asia, Australasia, Europe, and North America. A range of hygiene and emollient interventions were assessed: a moisturising soap bar; combinations of water soak, oil soak, and lotion; regular application of a commercially available moisturiser; use of two different standardised skin care regimens comprising a body wash and leave-on body lotion; bed bath with “wash gloves” containing numerous ingredients; and application of a hot towel after usual care bed bath.\nIn five studies, treatment duration ranged from five days to six months; only one study had post-treatment follow-up (one to eight days from end of treatment). Outcomes in the hot towel study were measured 15 minutes after the skin was wiped with a dry towel.\nThree studies each had high risk of attrition, detection, and performance bias.\nOnly one trial (n = 984) assessed frequency of skin damage via average monthly incidence of skin tears during six months of treatment. The emollient group (usual care plus twice-daily application of moisturiser) had 5.76 tears per month per 1000 occupied bed-days compared with 10.57 tears in the usual care only group (ad hoc or no standardised skin-moisturising regimen) (P = 0.004), but this is based on very low-quality evidence, so we are uncertain of this result.\nOnly one trial (n = 133) reported measuring side effects. At 56 ± 4 days from baseline, there were three undesirable effects (itch (mild), redness (mild/moderate), and irritation (severe)) in intervention group 1 (regimen consisting of a moisturising body wash and a moisturising leave-on lotion) and one event (mild skin dryness) in intervention group 2 (regimen consisting of body wash and a water-in-oil emulsion containing emollients and 4% urea). In both groups, the body wash was used daily and the emollient twice daily for eight weeks. There were zero adverse events in the usual care group. This result is based on very low-quality evidence. This same study also measured TEWL at 56 ± 4 days in the mid-volar forearm (n = 106) and the lower leg (n = 105). Compared to usual care, there may be no difference in TEWL between intervention groups, but evidence quality is low.\nOne study, which compared application of a hot towel for 10 seconds after a usual care bed bath versus usual care bed bath only, also measured TEWL at 15 minutes after the skin was wiped with a dry towel for one second. The mean TEWL was 8.6 g/m²/h (standard deviation (SD) 3.2) in the hot towel group compared with 8.9 g/m²/h (SD 4.1) in the usual care group (low-quality evidence; n = 42), showing there may be little or no difference between groups. A lower score is more favourable.\nThree studies (266 participants) measured SCH, but all evidence is of very low quality; we did not combine these studies due to differences in treatments (different skin care regimens for eight weeks; wash gloves for 12 weeks; and single application of hot towel to the skin) and differences in outcome reporting. All three studies showed no clear difference in SCH at follow-up (ranging from 15 minutes after the intervention to 12 weeks from baseline), when compared with usual care. A clinical score of dryness was measured by three studies (including 245 participants); pooling was not appropriate. The treatment groups (different skin care regimens for eight weeks; a moisturising soap bar used for five days; and combinations of water soak, oil soak, and lotion for 12 days) may reduce dryness compared to standard care or no intervention (results measured at 5, 8, and 56 ± 4 days after treatment was initiated). However, the quality of evidence for this outcome is low.\nOutcomes of erythema and clinical score of itch were not assessed in any included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence about the effects of hygiene and emollients in maintaining skin integrity in older people in residential and hospital settings is inadequate. We cannot draw conclusions regarding frequency of skin damage or side effects due to very low-quality evidence.\nLow-quality evidence suggests that in residential care settings for older people, certain types of hygiene and emollient interventions (two different standardised skin care regimens; moisturising soap bar; combinations of water soak, oil soak, and lotion) may be more effective in terms of clinical score of dryness when compared with no intervention or standard care.\nStudies were small and generally lacked methodological rigour, and information on effect sizes and precision was absent. More clinical trials are needed to guide practice; future studies should use a standard approach to measuring treatment effects and should include patient-reported outcomes, such as comfort and acceptability.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Evidence quality for outcomes of skin damage, side effects, and moisture in the outermost skin layer was very low. For remaining measured outcomes (i.e. water loss from the skin and skin dryness), evidence quality was low. We had concerns about how the studies were designed and undertaken, and about this review's small numbers of studies and participants." } ]
query-laysum	7424	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPulmonary rehabilitation benefits patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but gains are not maintained over time. Maintenance pulmonary rehabilitation has been defined as ongoing supervised exercise at a lower frequency than the initial pulmonary rehabilitation programme. It is not yet known whether a maintenance programme can preserve the benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation over time. Studies of maintenance programmes following pulmonary rehabilitation are heterogeneous, especially regarding supervision frequency. Furthermore, new maintenance models (remote and home-based) are emerging.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether supervised pulmonary rehabilitation maintenance programmes improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL), exercise performance, and health care utilisation in COPD patients compared with usual care. Secondly, to examine in subgroup analyses the impact of supervision frequency and model (remote or in-person) during the supervised maintenance programme.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, and two additional trial registries platforms up to 31 March 2020, without restriction by language or type of publication. We screened the reference lists of all primary studies for additional references. We also hand-searched conference abstracts and grey literature through the Cochrane Airways Trials Register and CENTRAL.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised trials comparing pulmonary rehabilitation maintenance for COPD with attention control or usual care. The primary outcomes were HRQoL, exercise capacity and hospitalisation; the secondary outcomes were exacerbation rate, mortality, direct costs of care, and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Results data that were similar enough to be pooled were meta-analysed using a random-effects model, and those that could not be pooled were reported in narrative form. Subgroup analyses were undertaken for frequency of supervision (programmes offered monthly or less frequently, versus more frequently) and those using remote supervision (e.g. telerehabilitation versus face-to-face supervision). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 21 studies (39 reports) with 1799 COPD patients. Participants ranged in age from 52 years to 88 years. Disease severity ranged from 24% to 88% of the predicted forced expiratory volume in one second. Programme duration ranged from four weeks to 36 months. In-person supervision was provided in 12 studies, and remote supervision was provided in six studies (telephone or web platform). Four studies provided a combination of in-person and remote supervision. Most studies had a high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of participants, and high risk of detection, attrition, and reporting bias.\nLow- to moderate-certainty evidence showed that supervised maintenance programmes may improve health-related quality of life at six to 12 months following pulmonary rehabilitation compared to usual care (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire total score mean difference (MD) 0.54 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 1.03, 258 participants, four studies), with a mean difference that exceeded the minimal important difference of 0.5 points for this outcome. It is possible that supervised maintenance could improve six-minute walk distance, but this is uncertain (MD 26 metres (m), 95% CI -1.04 to 52.84, 639 participants, 10 studies). There was little to no difference between the maintenance programme and the usual care group in exacerbations or all-cause hospitalizations, or the chance of death (odds ratio (OR) for mortality 0.73, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.51, 755 participants, six studies). Insufficient data were available to understand the impact of the frequency of supervision, or of remote versus in-person supervision. No adverse events were reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review suggests that supervised maintenance programmes for COPD patients after pulmonary rehabilitation are not associated with increased adverse events, may improve health-related quality of life, and could possibly improve exercise capacity at six to 12 months. Effects on exacerbations, hospitalisation and mortality are similar to those of usual care. However, the strength of evidence was limited because most included studies had a high risk of bias and small sample size. The optimal supervision frequency and models for supervised maintenance programmes are still unclear.\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": "At six to 12 months follow-up, compared with usual care, supervised maintenance programmes did appear to improve quality of life and physical function by a small amount. The studies did not show reduced hospitalizations, exacerbations, or mortality. There were no adverse events related to maintenance programmes, suggesting that maintenance programmes are safe." } ]
query-laysum	7425	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nUpper gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the most frequent causes of morbidity and mortality in the course of liver cirrhosis. Several treatments are used for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with liver diseases. One of them is vitamin K administration, but it is not known whether it benefits or harms people with acute or chronic liver disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. This is an update of this Cochrane review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin K for people with acute or chronic liver disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register (February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2 of 12, 2015), MEDLINE (Ovid SP) (1946 to February 2015), EMBASE (Ovid SP) (1974 to February 2015), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1900 to February 2015), and LILACS (1982 to 25 February 2015). We sought additional randomised trials from two registries of clinical trials: the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Search Portal and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials. We looked through the reference lists of the retrieved publications and review articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. We considered observational studies for assessment of harms only.\nData collection and analysis\n\\We aimed to summarise data from randomised clinical trials using Standard Cochrane methodology and assess them according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe found no randomised trials on vitamin K for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with liver diseases assessing benefits and harms of the intervention. We identified no quasi-randomised studies, historically controlled studies, or observational studies assessing harms.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis updated review found no randomised clinical trials of vitamin K for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with liver diseases. The benefits and harms of vitamin K need to be tested in randomised clinical trials. Until randomised clinical trials are conducted to assess the trade-off between benefits and harms, we cannot recommend or refute the use of vitamin K for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with liver diseases.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found no randomised clinical trials." } ]
query-laysum	7426	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003. Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia and is a disabling disorder characterised by painful involuntary head posturing. There are two available formulations of botulinum toxin, with botulinum toxin type A (BtA) usually considered the first line therapy for this condition. Botulinum toxin type B (BtB) is an alternative option, with no compelling theoretical reason why it might not be as- or even more effective - than BtA.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of botulinum toxin type A (BtA) versus botulinum toxin type B (BtB) in people with cervical dystonia.\nSearch methods\nTo identify studies for this review we searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of articles and conference proceedings. All elements of the search, with no language restrictions, were last run in October 2016.\nSelection criteria\nDouble-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BtA versus BtB in adults with cervical dystonia.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo independent authors assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a third author. We performed meta-analyses using the random-effects model, for the comparison BtA versus BtB to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). No prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out. The primary efficacy outcome was improvement on any validated symptomatic rating scale, and the primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs, all new to this update, of very low to low methodological quality, with a total of 270 participants.\nTwo studies exclusively enrolled participants with a known positive response to BtA treatment. This raises concerns of population enrichment, with a higher probability of benefit from BtA treatment. None of the trials were free of for-profit bias, nor did they provide information regarding registered study protocols. All trials evaluated the effect of a single Bt treatment session, and not repeated treatment sessions, using doses from 100 U to 250 U of BtA (all onabotulinumtoxinA, or Botox, formulations) and 5000 U to 10,000 U of BtB (rimabotulinumtoxinB, or Myobloc/Neurobloc).\nWe found no difference between the two types of botulinum toxin in terms of overall efficacy, with a mean difference of -1.44 (95% CI -3.58 to 0.70) points lower on the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) for BtB-treated participants, measured at two to four weeks after injection. The proportion of participants with adverse events was also not different between BtA and BtB (BtB versus BtA risk ratio (RR) 1.40; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.96). However, when compared to BtA, treatment with BtB was associated with an increased risk of one adverse events of special interest, namely treatment-related sore throat/dry mouth (BtB versus BtA RR of 4.39; 95% CI 2.43 to 7.91). Treatment-related dysphagia (swallowing difficulties) was not different between BtA and BtB (RR 2.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 10.41). The two types of botulinum toxin were otherwise clinically non-distinguishable in all the remaining outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe previous version of this review did not include any trials, since these were still ongoing at the time. Therefore, with this update we are able to change the conclusions of this review. There is low quality evidence that a single treatment session of BtA (specifically onabotulinumtoxinA) and a single treatment session of BtB (rimabotulinumtoxinB) are equally effective and safe in the treatment of adults with certain types of cervical dystonia. Treatment with BtB appears to present an increased risk of sore throat/dry mouth, compared to BtA. Overall, there is no clinical evidence from these single-treatment trials to support or contest the preferential use of one form of botulinum toxin over the other.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "All of the studies included participants that were different to the average person who suffers from cervical dystonia. To be included participants had to have a history of successful treatment with Bt. People with certain types of cervical dystonia, in particular the forms that make the head turn backward or forward, were not allowed to participate in the studies.\nNot enough participants were included across the studies for us to be completely confident in the results for the total number of adverse events, the self-reported evaluations by participants or the pain assessment.\nThe quality of the evidence for overall improvement and total number of adverse events was low. The quality of the evidence for more sore throat/dry mouth in people receiving BtB is moderate. The quality of the evidence where participants gave their self-assessments is low.\nNo definite conclusions can be drawn regarding overall safety and long-term utility of BtA compared to BtB in cervical dystonia." } ]
query-laysum	7427	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStrontium ranelate is a new treatment for osteoporosis therefore, its benefits and harms need to be known.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of strontium ranelate for the treatment and prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE (1996-March 2005), EMBASE (1996-week 9 2005), the Cochrane Library (1996-Issue 1 2005), reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings from the last two years. Additional data was sought from authors.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year duration comparing strontium ranelate to placebo and reporting fracture incidence, bone mineral density (BMD) or adverse events in postmenopausal women. Treatment population was defined as women with prevalent vertebral fractures and/or lumbar spine BMD T-score < -2.5 SD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently determined study eligibility, assessed study validity, graded the evidence and extracted relevant data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RCTs were grouped by dose and treatment duration. Where possible, meta-analysis was conducted using the random effects model.\nMain results\nFour trials met the inclusion criteria. Three had losses to follow-up > 20% and only one provided an adequate description of allocation concealment. Three included a treatment population (0.5 to 2 g/day of strontium ranelate) and one a prevention population (0.125, 0.5 and 1 g/day). A 37% reduction in vertebral fractures (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56, 0.71), and a 14% reduction in non-vertebral fractures with the upper boundary of the confidence interval approaching one (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75, 0.98), were demonstrated over three years with 2 g of strontium ranelate daily in a treatment population. An increase in BMD was shown at all sites after two to three years of treatment in both populations. Lower doses of strontium ranelate were superior to placebo and the highest dose demonstrated the greatest reduction in vertebral fractures and increase in BMD. An increased risk of diarrhea with 2 g of strontium ranelate daily was found; however, adverse events did not affect the risk of discontinuing treatment nor did it increase the risk of serious side effects, gastritis or death. Additional data suggests that the risk of vascular and nervous system side-effects is increased with taking 2 g of strontium ranelate daily over three to four years.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is silver level evidence (www.cochranemsk.org) to support the efficacy of strontium ranelate for the reduction of fractures (vertebral and to a lesser extent, non-vertebral) in postmenopausal osteoporotic women and an increase in BMD in postmenopausal women with/without osteoporosis. Diarrhea may occur, however, adverse events leading to study withdrawal were not significantly increased. Potential vascular and neurological side-effects need to be further explored.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is osteoporosis and how can strontium ranelate help?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Osteoporosis is a condition in which bone loss occurs. Bone loss leads to weak brittle bones that can break easily, even during everyday activities. Breaks (fractures) of the spine or non-spine (e.g. wrist and hip) are the most common type. There are many drugs and minerals that work to treat osteoporosis. Strontium ranelate is a drug that decreases the chance of fractures by slowing the loss of bone and possibly by building new bone. It is a new drug and therefore its benefits and harms need to be known." } ]
query-laysum	7428	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute bacterial meningitis is a bacterial infection of the membranes that surround and protect the brain, known as the meninges. The primary therapy for bacterial meningitis is antibiotics and corticosteroids. Although these therapies significantly improve outcomes, bacterial meningitis still has a high risk of death and a high risk of neurological sequelae in survivors. New adjuvant therapies are needed to further reduce the risk of death and neurological sequelae in bacterial meningitis.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of non-corticosteroid adjuvant pharmacological therapies for mortality, hearing loss, and other neurological sequelae in people with acute bacterial meningitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and LILACS databases and ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP trials registers up to 30 September 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any pharmacological adjuvant therapy for acute bacterial meningitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed and extracted data on methods, participants, interventions, and outcomes. We assessed risk of bias of studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We presented results using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) when meta-analysis was possible. All other results are presented in a narrative synthesis.\nMain results\nWe found that five different adjuvant therapies have been tested in RCTs for bacterial meningitis. These include paracetamol (3 studies, 1274 participants who were children); immunoglobulins (2 studies, 49 participants; one study included children, and the other adults); heparin (1 study, 15 participants who were adults); pentoxifylline (1 study, 57 participants who were children); and a mixture of succinic acid, inosine, nicotinamide, and riboflavin mononucleotide (1 study, 30 participants who were children). Paracetamol may make little or no difference to mortality (paracetamol 35.2% versus placebo 37.4%, 95% CI 30.3% to 40.8%; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 3 studies, 1274 participants; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence); hearing loss (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.34; 2 studies, 901 participants; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence); neurological sequelae other than hearing loss (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.50; 3 studies, 1274 participants; I² = 60%; low certainty evidence); and severe hearing loss (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.36; 2 studies, 901 participants; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). Paracetamol may lead to slightly more short-term neurological sequelae other than hearing loss (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.81; 2 studies, 1096 participants; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) and slightly more long-term neurological sequelae other than hearing loss (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.04; 2 studies, 901 participants; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in either group in any of the paracetamol studies (very low certainty evidence). Two paracetamol studies had a low risk of bias in most domains, and one had low or unclear risk of bias in all domains. We judged the certainty of evidence to be low for mortality due to limitations in study design (unclear risk of bias in at least one domain and imprecision (high level of uncertainty in absolute effects), and low for all other outcomes due to limitations in study design (unclear risk of bias in at least one domain), and imprecision (low sample size and few events) or inconsistency in effect estimates (heterogeneity).\nWe were not able to perform meta-analysis for any of the other adjuvant therapies due to the limited number of included studies. It is uncertain whether immunoglobulins, heparin, or pentoxifylline improves mortality outcomes due to the very low certainty of the evidence. Zero adverse events were reported for immunoglobulins (very low certainty evidence), and allergic reactions occurred at a rate of 3.3% in participants receiving a mixture of succinic acid, inosine, nicotinamide, and riboflavin mononucleotide (intervention group) (very low certainty evidence). None of our other outcomes (hearing loss, neurological sequelae other than hearing loss, severe hearing loss, and short-term or long-term neurological sequelae other than hearing loss) were reported in these studies, and all of these studies were judged to have a high risk of bias. All reported outcomes for all included adjuvant therapies, other than paracetamol, were graded as very low certainty of evidence due to limitations in study design (unclear or high risk of bias in at least four domains) and imprecision (extremely low sample size and few events).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFew adjuvant therapies for bacterial meningitis have been tested in RCTs. Paracetamol may make little or no difference to mortality, with a high level of uncertainty in the absolute effects (low certainty evidence). Paracetamol may make little or no difference to hearing loss, neurological sequelae other than hearing loss, and severe hearing loss (all low certainty evidence). Paracetamol may lead to slightly more short-term and long-term neurological sequelae other than hearing loss (both outcomes low certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether any of the adjuvant therapies included in this review (paracetamol, immunoglobulins, heparin, pentoxifylline, or a mixture of succinic acid, inosine, nicotinamide, and riboflavin mononucleotide) are beneficial or detrimental in 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": "Acute bacterial meningitis is an infection of the protective membranes that surround the brain, known as the meninges. Meningitis causes inflammation and damage to the brain tissue, leading to death in 7% to 50% of cases. Survivors often have neurological sequelae (neurological symptoms that persist after the infection is cured, such as hearing loss, physical disability (impairment), localised problems (focal neurological deficits, or loss of normal function of brain, spinal cord, or nerves that is localised to a specific area of the body), seizures, and cognitive impairment, which often lead to learning difficulties in children and trouble returning to work for adults) that can last for weeks to years. Bacterial meningitis is treated with antibiotics as the primary therapy, with corticosteroids the only recommended adjuvant therapy that has been shown to improve outcomes. We wanted to find out whether the use of adjuvant therapies other than corticosteroids is better or worse than standard treatment alone or with a placebo in people with acute bacterial meningitis." } ]
query-laysum	7429	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAggression is a disposition, a willingness to inflict harm, regardless of whether this is behaviourally or verbally expressed and regardless of whether physical harm is sustained.\nDe-escalation is a psychosocial intervention for managing people with disturbed or aggressive behaviour. Secondary management strategies such as rapid tranquillisation, physical intervention and seclusion should only be considered once de-escalation and other strategies have failed to calm the service user.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effects of de-escalation techniques in the short-term management of aggression or agitation thought or likely to be due to psychosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (latest search 7 April, 2016).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials using de-escalation techniques for the short-term management of aggressive or agitated behaviour. We planned to include trials involving adults (at least 18 years) with a potential for aggressive behaviour due to psychosis, from those in a psychiatric setting to those possibly under the influence of alcohol or drugs and/or as part of an acute setting as well. We planned to include trials meeting our inclusion criteria that provided useful data.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors inspected all abstracts of studies identified by the search process. As we were unable to include any studies, we could not perform data extraction and analysis.\nMain results\nOf the 345 citations that were identified using the search strategies, we found only one reference to be potentially suitable for further inspection. However, after viewing the full text, it was excluded as it was not a randomised controlled trial.\nAuthors' conclusions\nUsing de-escalation techniques for people with psychosis induced aggression or agitation appears to be accepted as good clinical practice but is not supported by evidence from randomised trials. It is unclear why it has remained such an under-researched area. Conducting trials in this area could be influenced by funding flow, ethical concerns - justified or not - anticipated pace of recruitment as well the difficulty in accurately quantifying the effects of de-escalation itself. With supportive funders and ethics committees, imaginative trialists, clinicians and service-user groups and wide collaboration this dearth of randomised research could be addressed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "No trials met the review requirements. There is no trial-based evidence currently available assessing the effectiveness of de-escalation techniques for managing aggression or agitation." } ]
query-laysum	7430	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic heart failure (HF) is a growing global health challenge. People with HF experience substantial burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous (2014) Cochrane systematic review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission among people with HF, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane Review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with HF with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction HF (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in the hospital/centre-based setting.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of people with heart failure.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 29 January 2018. We also checked the bibliographies of systematic reviews and two trial registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that compared exercise-based CR interventions with six months' or longer follow-up versus a no exercise control that could include usual medical care. The study population comprised adults (> 18 years) with evidence of HF - either HFrEF or HFpEF.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened all identified references and rejected those that were clearly ineligible for inclusion in the review. We obtained full papers of potentially relevant trials. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials, assessed their risk of bias, and performed GRADE analyses.\nMain results\nWe included 44 trials (5783 participants with HF) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 11 new trials (N = 1040), in addition to the previously identified 33 trials. Although the evidence base includes predominantly patients with HFrEF with New York Heart Association classes II and III receiving centre-based exercise-based CR programmes, a growing body of studies include patients with HFpEF and are undertaken in a home-based setting. All included studies included a no formal exercise training intervention comparator. However, a wide range of comparators were seen across studies that included active intervention (i.e. education, psychological intervention) or usual medical care alone. The overall risk of bias of included trials was low or unclear, and we downgraded results using the GRADE tool for all but one outcome.\nCardiac rehabilitation may make little or no difference in all-cause mortality over the short term (≤ one year of follow-up) (27 trials, 28 comparisons (2596 participants): intervention 67/1302 (5.1%) vs control 75/1294 (5.8%); risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.21; low-quality GRADE evidence) but may improve all-cause mortality in the long term (> 12 months follow up) (6 trials/comparisons (2845 participants): intervention 244/1418 (17.2%) vs control 280/1427 (19.6%) events): RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02; high-quality evidence). Researchers provided no data on deaths due to HF. CR probably reduces overall hospital admissions in the short term (up to one year of follow-up) (21 trials, 21 comparisons (2182 participants): (intervention 180/1093 (16.5%) vs control 258/1089 (23.7%); RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.83; moderate-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 14) and may reduce HF-specific hospitalisation (14 trials, 15 comparisons (1114 participants): (intervention 40/562 (7.1%) vs control 61/552 (11.1%) RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; low-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 25). After CR, a clinically important improvement in short-term disease-specific health-related quality of life may be evident (Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire - 17 trials, 18 comparisons (1995 participants): mean difference (MD) -7.11 points, 95% CI -10.49 to -3.73; low-quality evidence). Pooling across all studies, regardless of the HRQoL measure used, shows there may be clinically important improvement with exercise (26 trials, 29 comparisons (3833 participants); standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.60, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.39; I² = 87%; Chi² = 215.03; low-quality evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent different models of ExCR delivery: centre vs. home-based, exercise dose, exercise only vs. comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone vs aerobic plus resistance programmes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis updated Cochrane Review provides additional randomised evidence (11 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous version (2014) of this Cochane Review. Compared to no exercise control, CR appears to have no impact on mortality in the short term (< 12 months' follow-up). Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows that CR probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and may reduce HF-specific hospital admissions in the short term (up to 12 months). CR may confer a clinically important improvement in health-related quality of life, although we remain uncertain about this because the evidence is of low quality. Future ExCR trials need to continue to consider the recruitment of traditionally less represented HF patient groups including older, female, and HFpEF patients, and alternative CR delivery settings including home- and using technology-based programmes.\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 heart failure (HF) experience fatigue and shortness of breath. This negatively affects their activities of daily living and health-related quality of life. They are at increased risk of hospital admission and death." } ]
query-laysum	7431	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic lung condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and limited lung airflow, dyspnoea and recurrent exacerbations. Suboptimal therapy or non-adherence may result in limited effectiveness of pharmacological treatments and subsequently poor health outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of interventions intended to improve adherence to single or combined pharmacological treatments compared with usual care or interventions that are not intended to improve adherence in people with COPD.\nSearch methods\nWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (search date 1 May 2020). We also searched web-based clinical trial registers.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs included adults with COPD diagnosed by established criteria (e.g. Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease). Interventions included change to pharmacological treatment regimens, adherence aids, education, behavioural or psychological interventions (e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy), communication or follow-up by a health professional (e.g. telephone, text message or face-to-face), multi-component interventions, and interventions to improve inhaler technique.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Working in pairs, four review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed confidence in the evidence for each primary outcome using GRADE. Primary outcomes were adherence, quality of life and hospital service utilisation. Adherence measures included the Adherence among Patients with Chronic Disease questionnaire (APCD). Quality of life measures included the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ).\nMain results\nWe included 14 trials (2191 participants) in the analysis with follow-up ranging from six to 52 weeks. Age ranged from 54 to 75 years, and COPD severity ranged from mild to very severe. Trials were conducted in the USA, Spain, Germany, Japan, Jordan, Northern Ireland, Iran, South Korea, China and Belgium. Risk of bias was high due to lack of blinding. Evidence certainty was downgraded due to imprecision and small participant numbers.\nSingle component interventions\nSix studies (55 to 212 participants) reported single component interventions including changes to pharmacological treatment (different roflumilast doses or different inhaler types), adherence aids (Bluetooth inhaler reminder device), educational (comprehensive verbal instruction), behavioural or psychological (motivational interview).\nChange in dose of roflumilast may result in little to no difference in adherence (odds ratio (OR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.99; studies = 1, participants = 55; low certainty). A Bluetooth inhaler reminder device did not improve adherence, but comprehensive verbal instruction from a health professional did improve mean adherence (prescription refills) (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.54). Motivational interview improved mean adherence scores on the APCD scale (MD 22.22, 95% CI 8.42 to 36.02).\nUse of a single inhaler compared to two separate inhalers may have little to no impact on quality of life (SGRQ; MD 0.80, 95% CI –3.12 to 4.72; very low certainty). A Bluetooth inhaler monitoring device may provide a small improvement in quality of life on the CCQ (MD 0.40, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.73; very low certainty).\nSingle inhaler use may have little to no impact on the number of people admitted to hospital compared to two separate inhalers (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.90; very low certainty). Single component interventions may have little to no impact on the number of people expereincing adverse events (very low certainty evidence from studies of a change in pharmacotherapy or use of adherence aids). A change in pharmacotherapy may have little to no impact on exacerbations or deaths (very low certainty).\nMulti-component interventions\nEight studies (30 to 734 participants) reported multi-component interventions including tailored care package that included adherence support as a key component or included inhaler technique as a component.\nA multi-component intervention may result in more people adhering to pharmacotherapy compared to control at 40.5 weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.37, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.59; studies = 4, participants = 446; I2 = 0%; low certainty).\nThere may be little to no impact on quality of life (SGRQ, Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire, CAT) (studies = 3; low to very low certainty).\nMulti-component interventions may help to reduce the number of people admitted to hospital for any cause (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.63; studies = 2, participants = 877; low certainty), or COPD-related hospitalisations (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; studies = 2, participants = 220; moderate certainty). There may be a small benefit on people experiencing severe exacerbations.\nThere may be little to no effect on adverse events, serious adverse events or deaths, but events were infrequently reported and were rare (low to very low certainty).\nAuthors' conclusions\nSingle component interventions (e.g. education or motivational interviewing provided by a health professional) can help to improve adherence to pharmacotherapy (low to very low certainty). There were slight improvements in quality of life with a Bluetooth inhaler device, but evidence is from one study and very low certainty. Change to pharmacotherapy (e.g. single inhaler instead of two, or different doses of roflumilast) has little impact on hospitalisations or exacerbations (very low certainty). There is no difference in people experiencing adverse events (all-cause or COPD-related), or deaths (very low certainty).\nMulti-component interventions may improve adherence with education, motivational or behavioural components delivered by health professionals (low certainty). There is little to no impact on quality of life (low to very low certainty). They may help reduce the number of people admitted to hospital overall (specifically pharmacist-led approaches) (low certainty), and fewer people may have COPD-related hospital admissions (moderately certainty). There may be a small reduction in people experiencing severe exacerbations, but evidence is from one study (low certainty). Limited evidence found no difference in people experiencing adverse events, serious adverse events or deaths (low to very low certainty).\nThe evidence presented should be interpreted with caution. Larger studies with more intervention types, especially single interventions, are needed. It is unclear which specific COPD subgroups would benefit, therefore discussions between health professionals and patients may help to determine whether they will help to improve health outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Take home message\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We could not say for certain that simple approaches are useful to help people with COPD to improve medication use because of very limited information. Combined approaches may help people to take their medication(s) as prescribed and can help to reduce the number of people admitted to hospital, however, more information is needed to help answer this question with confidence." } ]
query-laysum	7432	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSupplemental oxygen is frequently administered to patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS secondary to viral illness such as coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). An up-to-date understanding of how best to target this therapy (e.g. arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) or peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) aim) in these patients is urgently required.\nObjectives\nTo address how oxygen therapy should be targeted in adults with ARDS (particularly ARDS secondary to COVID-19 or other respiratory viruses) and requiring mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit, and the impact oxygen therapy has on mortality, days ventilated, days of catecholamine use, requirement for renal replacement therapy, and quality of life.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 15 May 2020 for ongoing or completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs).\nSelection criteria\nTwo review authors independently assessed all records in accordance with standard Cochrane methodology for study selection.\nWe included RCTs comparing supplemental oxygen administration (i.e. different target PaO2 or SpO2 ranges) in adults with ARDS and receiving mechanical ventilation in an intensive care setting. We excluded studies exploring oxygen administration in patients with different underlying diagnoses or those receiving non-invasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, or oxygen via facemask.\nData collection and analysis\nOne review author performed data extraction, which a second review author checked. We assessed risk of bias in included studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We used the GRADE approach to judge the certainty of the evidence for the following outcomes; mortality at longest follow-up, days ventilated, days of catecholamine use, and requirement for renal replacement therapy.\nMain results\nWe identified one completed RCT evaluating oxygen targets in patients with ARDS receiving mechanical ventilation in an intensive care setting. The study randomized 205 mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS to either conservative (PaO2 55 to 70 mmHg, or SpO2 88% to 92%) or liberal (PaO2 90 to 105 mmHg, or SpO2≥ 96%) oxygen therapy for seven days.\nOverall risk of bias was high (due to lack of blinding, small numbers of participants, and the trial stopping prematurely), and we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low. The available data suggested that mortality at 90 days may be higher in those participants receiving a lower oxygen target (odds ratio (OR) 1.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 3.27). There was no evidence of a difference between the lower and higher target groups in mean number of days ventilated (14.0, 95% CI 10.0 to 18.0 versus 14.5, 95% CI 11.8 to 17.1); number of days of catecholamine use (8.0, 95% CI 5.5 to 10.5 versus 7.2, 95% CI 5.9 to 8.4); or participants receiving renal replacement therapy (13.7%, 95% CI 5.8% to 21.6% versus 12.0%, 95% CI 5.0% to 19.1%). Quality of life was not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are very uncertain as to whether a higher or lower oxygen target is more beneficial in patients with ARDS and receiving mechanical ventilation in an intensive care setting. We identified only one RCT with a total of 205 participants exploring this question, and rated the risk of bias as high and the certainty of the findings as very low. Further well-conducted studies are urgently needed to increase the certainty of the findings reported here. This review should be updated when more evidence is available.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We included only one study (205 participants) in the review. Patients with ARDS and receiving oxygen through a breathing tube in an intensive care unit may have a higher chance of death if they receive lower amounts of oxygen compared to receiving much higher amounts of oxygen, but the evidence is very uncertain." } ]
query-laysum	7433	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute bronchiolitis is the leading cause of medical emergencies during winter months in infants younger than 24 months old. Chest physiotherapy is sometimes used to assist infants in the clearance of secretions in order to decrease ventilatory effort. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and updated in 2006, 2012, and 2016.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy of chest physiotherapy in infants younger than 24 months old with acute bronchiolitis. A secondary objective was to determine the efficacy of different techniques of chest physiotherapy (vibration and percussion, passive exhalation, or instrumental).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, PEDro (October 2011 to 20 April 2022), and two trials registers (5 April 2022).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which chest physiotherapy was compared to control (conventional medical care with no physiotherapy intervention) or other respiratory physiotherapy techniques in infants younger than 24 months old with bronchiolitis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nOur update of the searches dated 20 April 2022 identified five new RCTs with 430 participants. We included a total of 17 RCTs (1679 participants) comparing chest physiotherapy with no intervention or comparing different types of physiotherapy.\nFive trials (246 participants) assessed percussion and vibration techniques plus postural drainage (conventional chest physiotherapy), and 12 trials (1433 participants) assessed different passive flow-oriented expiratory techniques, of which three trials (628 participants) assessed forced expiratory techniques, and nine trials (805 participants) assessed slow expiratory techniques. In the slow expiratory subgroup, two trials (78 participants) compared the technique with instrumental physiotherapy techniques, and two recent trials (116 participants) combined slow expiratory techniques with rhinopharyngeal retrograde technique (RRT). One trial used RRT alone as the main component of the physiotherapy intervention. Clinical severity was mild in one trial, severe in four trials, moderate in six trials, and mild to moderate in five trials. One study did not report clinical severity. Two trials were performed on non-hospitalised participants.\nOverall risk of bias was high in six trials, unclear in five, and low in six trials.\nThe analyses showed no effects of conventional techniques on change in bronchiolitis severity status, respiratory parameters, hours with oxygen supplementation, or length of hospital stay (5 trials, 246 participants).\nRegarding instrumental techniques (2 trials, 80 participants), one trial observed similar results in bronchiolitis severity status when comparing slow expiration to instrumental techniques (mean difference 0.10, 95% confidence interval (C) −0.17 to 0.37).\nForced passive expiratory techniques failed to show an effect on bronchiolitis severity in time to recovery (2 trials, 509 participants; high-certainty evidence) and time to clinical stability (1 trial, 99 participants; high-certainty evidence) in infants with severe bronchiolitis. Important adverse effects were reported with the use of forced expiratory techniques.\nRegarding slow expiratory techniques, a mild to moderate improvement was observed in bronchiolitis severity score (standardised mean difference −0.43, 95% CI −0.73 to −0.13; I2 = 55%; 7 trials, 434 participants; low-certainty evidence). Also, in one trial an improvement in time to recovery was observed with the use of slow expiratory techniques. No benefit was observed in length of hospital stay, except for one trial which showed a one-day reduction. No effects were shown or reported for other clinical outcomes such as duration on oxygen supplementation, use of bronchodilators, or parents' impression of physiotherapy benefit.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found low-certainty evidence that passive slow expiratory technique may result in a mild to moderate improvement in bronchiolitis severity when compared to control. This evidence comes mostly from infants with moderately acute bronchiolitis treated in hospital. The evidence was limited with regard to infants with severe bronchiolitis and those with moderately severe bronchiolitis treated in ambulatory settings.\nWe found high-certainty evidence that conventional techniques and forced expiratory techniques result in no difference in bronchiolitis severity or any other outcome. We found high-certainty evidence that forced expiratory techniques in infants with severe bronchiolitis do not improve their health status and can lead to severe adverse effects.\nCurrently, the evidence regarding new physiotherapy techniques such as RRT or instrumental physiotherapy is scarce, and further trials are needed to determine their effects and potential for use in infants with moderate bronchiolitis, as well as the potential additional effect of RRT when combined with slow passive expiratory techniques. Finally, the effectiveness of combining chest physiotherapy with hypertonic saline should also be investigated.\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": "Despite the positive effects found for some types of chest physiotherapy, most of the trials were poorly designed, which has a direct impact on the certainty and reliability of the results. For some techniques, the evidence for the effect is of low certainty. Furthermore, a larger number of participants, longer interventions, and well-reported adverse events are needed before any firm conclusions can be reached.\nThe evidence is robust for the older or more established types of physiotherapy (vibration and percussion and forced expiratory techniques) administered to hospitalised infants. The evidence is limited for slow expiratory techniques, and only anecdotal for the newest techniques (rhinopharyngeal retrograde clearance and instrumental clearance techniques), which have been explored in few trials. There is little evidence on the effectiveness of chest physiotherapy in non-hospitalised infants." } ]
query-laysum	7434	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nStroke is caused by the interruption of blood flow to the brain (ischemic stroke) or the rupture of blood vessels within the brain (hemorrhagic stroke) and may lead to changes in perception, cognition, mood, speech, health-related quality of life, and function, such as difficulty walking and using the arm. Activity limitations (decreased function) of the upper extremity are a common finding for individuals living with stroke. Mental practice (MP) is a training method that uses cognitive rehearsal of activities to improve performance of those activities.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether MP improves outcomes of upper extremity rehabilitation for individuals living with the effects of stroke.\nIn particular, we sought to (1) determine the effects of MP on upper extremity activity, upper extremity impairment, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, economic costs, and adverse effects; and (2) explore whether effects differed according to (a) the time post stroke at which MP was delivered, (b) the dose of MP provided, or (c) the type of comparison performed.\nSearch methods\nWe last searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register on September 17, 2019. On September 3, 2019, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and REHABDATA. On October 2, 2019, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We reviewed the reference lists of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult participants with stroke who had deficits in upper extremity function (called upper extremity activity).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened titles and abstracts of the citations produced by the literature search and excluded obviously irrelevant studies. We obtained the full text of all remaining studies, and both review authors then independently selected trials for inclusion. We combined studies when the review produced a minimum of two trials employing a particular intervention strategy and a common outcome. We considered the primary outcome to be the ability of the arm to be used for appropriate tasks, called upper extremity activity. Secondary outcomes included upper extremity impairment (such as quality of movement, range of motion, tone, presence of synergistic movement), activities of daily living (ADLs), health-related quality of life (HRQL), economic costs, and adverse events. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies and applied GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We completed subgroup analyses for time since stroke, dosage of MP, type of comparison, and type of arm activity outcome measure.\nMain results\nWe included 25 studies involving 676 participants from nine countries. For the comparison of MP in addition to other treatment versus the other treatment, MP in combination with other treatment appears more effective in improving upper extremity activity than the other treatment without MP (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39 to 0.94; I² = 39%; 15 studies; 397 participants); the GRADE certainty of evidence score was moderate based on risk of bias for the upper extremity activity outcome. For upper extremity impairment, results were as follows: SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.87; I² = 43%; 15 studies; 397 participants, with a GRADE score of moderate, based on risk of bias. For ADLs, results were as follows: SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.39; I² = 0%; 4 studies; 157 participants; the GRADE score was low due to risk of bias and small sample size. For the comparison of MP versus conventional treatment, the only outcome with available data to combine (3 studies; 50 participants) was upper extremity impairment (SMD 0.34, 95% CI -0.33 to 1.00; I² = 21%); GRADE for the impairment outcome in this comparison was low due to risk of bias and small sample size. Subgroup analyses of time post stroke, dosage of MP, or comparison type for the MP in combination with other rehabilitation treatment versus the other treatment comparison showed no differences. The secondary outcome of health-related quality of life was reported in only one study, and no study noted the outcomes of economic costs and adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-certainty evidence shows that MP in addition to other treatment versus the other treatment appears to be beneficial in improving upper extremity activity. Moderate-certainty evidence also shows that MP in addition to other treatment versus the other treatment appears to be beneficial in improving upper extremity impairment after stroke. Low-certainty evidence suggests that ADLs may not be improved with MP in addition to other treatment versus the other treatment. Low-certainty evidence also suggests that MP versus conventional treatment may not improve upper extremity impairment. Further study is required to evaluate effects of MP on time post stroke, the volume of MP required to affect outcomes, and whether improvement is maintained over the long term.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Our review of the available literature provided moderate-certainty evidence that mental practice, when added to other physical rehabilitation treatment, produced improved outcomes compared to use of the other rehabilitation treatment alone. Evidence to date shows improvements in arm function and arm movement. It is not clear whether (1) mental practice added to physical practice produces improvements in activities of daily living; (2) mental practice alone compared to conventional treatment is beneficial in improving motor control of the arm; (3) how much mental practice could produce the best results; (4) and whether mental practice is best used at a particular time after stroke. No adverse effects or harms were reported in any of the studies." } ]
query-laysum	7435	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMethotrexate is a folic acid antagonist widely used for the treatment of neoplastic disorders. Methotrexate inhibits the synthesis of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), ribonucleic acid (RNA) and proteins by binding to dihydrofolate reductase. Currently, methotrexate is among the most commonly used drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This is an update of the previous Cochrane systematic review published in 1997.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate short term benefits and harms of methotrexate for treating RA compared to placebo.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1966 to 1997 and then updated to November 2013. The search was complemented with a bibliography search of the reference lists of trials retrieved from the electronic search.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy against placebo alone in people with RA. Any trial duration and MTX doses were included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently determined which studies were eligible for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes were pooled using mean differences (MDs) for continuous variables or standardized mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were used to measure the same outcome. Pooled risk ratio (RR) was used for dichotomous variables. Fixed-effect models were used throughout, although random-effects models were used for outcomes showing heterogeneity.\nMain results\nFive trials with 300 patients were included in the original version of the review. An additional two trials with 432 patients were added to the 2013 update of the review for a total of 732 participants. The trials were generally of unclear to low risk of bias with a follow-up duration ranging from 12 to 52 weeks. All trials included patients who have failed prior treatment (for example, gold therapy, D-penicillamine, azathioprine or anti-malarials); mean disease duration that ranged between 1 and 14 years with six trials reporting more than 4 years; and weekly doses that ranged between 5 mg and 25 mg.\nBenefits\nStatistically significant and clinically important differences were observed for most efficacy outcomes. MTX monotherapy showed a clinically important and statistically significant improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response rate when compared with placebo at 52 weeks (RR 3.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5 to 6.0; number needed to treat (NNT) 7, 95% CI 4 to 22). Fifteen more patients out of 100 had a major improvement in the ACR 50 outcome compared to placebo (absolute treatment benefit (ATB) 15%, 95% CI 8% to 23%).\nStatistically significant improvement in physical function (scale of 0 to 3) was also observed in patients receiving MTX alone compared with placebo at 12 to 52 weeks (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.16; odds ratio (OR) 2.8, 95% CI 0.23 to 32.2; NNT 4, 95% CI 3 to 7). Nine more patients out of 100 improved in physical function compared to placebo (ATB -9%, 95% CI -13% to -5.3%). Similarly, the proportion of patients who improved at least 20% on the Short Form-36 (SF-36) physical component was higher in the MTX-treated group compared with placebo at 52 weeks (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.1; NNT 9, 95% CI 4 to 539). Twelve more patients out of 100 showed an improvement of at least 20% in the physical component of the quality of life measure compared to placebo (ATB 12%, 95% CI 1% to 24%). No clinically important or statistically significant differences were observed in the SF-36 mental component.\nAlthough no statistically significant differences were observed in radiographic scores (that is, Total Sharp score, erosion score, joint space narrowing), radiographic progression rates (measured by an increase in erosion scores of more than 3 units on a scale ranging from 0 to 448) were statistically significantly lower for patients in the MTX group compared with placebo-treated patients (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.86; NNT 13, 95% CI 10 to 60). Eight more patients out of 100 showed less damage to joints measured by an increase in erosion scores compared to placebo (ATB -8%, 95% CI -16% to -1%). In the one study measuring remission, no participants in either group met the remission criteria. These are defined by at least five of (≥ 2 months): morning stiffness of < 15 minutes, no fatigue, no joint pain by history, no joint tenderness, no joint swelling, and Westergren erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of < 20 mm/hr in men and < 30 mm/hr in women.\nHarms\nPatients in the MTX monotherapy group were twice as likely to discontinue from the study due to adverse events compared to patients in the placebo group, at 12 to 52 weeks (16% versus 8%; RR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.3; NNT 13, 95% CI 6 to 44). Compared to placebo, nine more people out of 100 who took MTX withdrew from the studies because of side effects (ATB 9%, 95% CI 3% to 14%). Total adverse event rates at 12 weeks were higher in the MTX monotherapy group compared to the placebo group (45% versus 15%; RR 3.0, 95% CI 1.4 to 6.4; NNT 4, 95% CI 2 to 17). Thirty more people out of 100 who took MTX compared to those who took placebo experienced any type of side effect (common or rare) (ATB 30, 95% CI 13% to 47%). No statistically significant differences were observed in the total number of serious adverse events between the MTX group and the placebo group at 27 to 52 weeks. Three people out of 100 who took MTX alone experienced rare but serious side effects compared to 2 people out of 100 who took a placebo (3% versus 2%, respectively).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on mainly moderate to high quality evidence, methotrexate (weekly doses ranging between 5 mg and 25 mg) showed a substantial clinical and statistically significant benefit compared to placebo in the short term treatment (12 to 52 weeks) of people with RA, although its use was associated with a 16% discontinuation rate due to adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What happens to people with rheumatoid arthritis who take methotrexate alone?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "" } ]
query-laysum	7436	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) is a strategy to maintain positive airway pressure throughout the respiratory cycle through the application of a bias flow of respiratory gas to an apparatus attached to the nose. Early treatment with NCPAP is associated with decreased risk of mechanical ventilation exposure and might reduce chronic lung disease. Nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) is a form of noninvasive ventilation delivered through the same nasal interface during which patients are exposed to short inflations, along with background end-expiratory pressure.\nObjectives\nTo examine the risks and benefits of early (within the first six hours after birth) NIPPV versus early NCPAP for preterm infants at risk of or with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).\nPrimary endpoints are respiratory failure and the need for intubated ventilatory support during the first week of life. Secondary endpoints include the incidence of mortality, chronic lung disease (CLD) (oxygen therapy at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age), pneumothorax, duration of respiratory support, duration of oxygen therapy, and intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH).\nSearch methods\nSearches were conducted in January 2023 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Dissertation Abstracts. The reference lists of related systematic reviews and of studies selected for inclusion were also searched.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Eligible studies compared NIPPV versus NCPAP treatment, starting within six hours after birth in preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestational age (GA)).\nData collection and analysis\nWe collected and analyzed data using the recommendations of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group.\nMain results\nWe included 17 trials, enrolling 1958 infants in this review. NIPPV likely reduces the rate of respiratory failure (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.78; risk difference (RD) -0.08, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05; 17 RCTs, 1958 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and needing endotracheal tube ventilation (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.81; RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.04; 16 RCTs; 1848 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) amongst infants treated with early NIPPV compared with early NCPAP.\nThe meta-analysis demonstrated that NIPPV may reduce the risk of developing CLD compared to CPAP (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 12 RCTs, 1284 infants; low-certainty evidence) slightly. NIPPV may result in little to no difference in mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.10; 17 RCTs; 1958 infants; I2 of 0%; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of pneumothorax (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.41; 16 RCTs; 1674 infants; I2 of 0%; low-certainty evidence), and rates of severe IVH (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.79; 8 RCTs; 977 infants; I2 of 0%; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen applied within six hours after birth, NIPPV likely reduces the risk of respiratory failure and the need for intubation and endotracheal tube ventilation in very preterm infants (GA 28 weeks and above) with respiratory distress syndrome or at risk for RDS. It may also decrease the rate of CLD slightly. However, most trials enrolled infants with a gestational age of approximately 28 to 32 weeks with an overall mean gestational age of around 30 weeks. As such, the results of this review may not apply to extremely preterm infants that are most at risk of needing mechanical ventilation or developing CLD. Additional studies are needed to confirm these results and to assess the safety of NIPPV compared with NCPAP alone in a larger patient population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched scientific databases for studies comparing NCPAP with NIPPV in preterm infants (born before 37 completed weeks of pregnancy) who needed respiratory support shortly after birth. We looked at the need for a breathing tube and long-term side effects." } ]
query-laysum	7437	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nVitamin D supplementation during pregnancy may be needed to protect against adverse pregnancy outcomes. This is an update of a review that was first published in 2012 and then in 2016.\nObjectives\nTo examine whether vitamin D supplementation alone or in combination with calcium or other vitamins and minerals given to women during pregnancy can safely improve maternal and neonatal outcomes.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register (12 July 2018), contacted relevant organisations (15 May 2018), reference lists of retrieved trials and registries at clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (12 July 2018). Abstracts were included if they had enough information to extract the data.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effect of supplementation with vitamin D alone or in combination with other micronutrients for women during pregnancy in comparison to placebo or no intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently i) assessed the eligibility of trials against the inclusion criteria, ii) extracted data from included trials, and iii) assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 30 trials (7033 women), excluded 60 trials, identified six as ongoing/unpublished trials and two trials are awaiting assessments.\nSupplementation with vitamin D alone versus placebo/no intervention\nA total of 22 trials involving 3725 pregnant women were included in this comparison; 19 trials were assessed as having low-to-moderate risk of bias for most domains and three trials were assessed as having high risk of bias for most domains. Supplementation with vitamin D alone during pregnancy probably reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia (risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.79; 4 trials, 499 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and gestational diabetes (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 4 trials, 446 women, moderate-certainty evidence); and probably reduces the risk of having a baby with low birthweight (less than 2500 g) (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.87; 5 trials, 697 women, moderate-certainty evidence) compared to women who received placebo or no intervention. Vitamin D supplementation may make little or no difference in the risk of having a preterm birth < 37 weeks compared to no intervention or placebo (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.30; 7 trials, 1640 women, low-certainty evidence). In terms of maternal adverse events, vitamin D supplementation may reduce the risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.91; 1 trial, 1134 women, low-certainty evidence). There were no cases of hypercalcaemia (1 trial, 1134 women, low-certainty evidence), and we are very uncertain as to whether vitamin D increases or decreases the risk of nephritic syndrome (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; 1 trial, 135 women, very low-certainty evidence). However, given the scarcity of data in general for maternal adverse events, no firm conclusions can be drawn.\nSupplementation with vitamin D and calcium versus placebo/no intervention\nNine trials involving 1916 pregnant women were included in this comparison; three trials were assessed as having low risk of bias for allocation and blinding, four trials were assessed as having high risk of bias and two had some components having a low risk, high risk, or unclear risk. Supplementation with vitamin D and calcium during pregnancy probably reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.78; 4 trials, 1174 women, moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of the intervention is uncertain on gestational diabetes (RR 0.33,% CI 0.01 to 7.84; 1 trial, 54 women, very low-certainty evidence); and low birthweight (less than 2500 g) (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.10 to 4.55; 2 trials, 110 women, very low-certainty evidence) compared to women who received placebo or no intervention. Supplementation with vitamin D and calcium during pregnancy may increase the risk of preterm birth < 37 weeks in comparison to women who received placebo or no intervention (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.28; 5 trials, 942 women, low-certainty evidence). No trial in this comparison reported on maternal adverse events.\nSupplementation with vitamin D + calcium + other vitamins and minerals versus calcium + other vitamins and minerals (but no vitamin D)\nOne trial in 1300 participants was included in this comparison; it was assessed as having low risk of bias. Pre-eclampsia was not assessed. Supplementation with vitamin D + other nutrients may make little or no difference in the risk of preterm birth < 37 weeks (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.59; 1 trial, 1298 women, low-certainty evidence); or low birthweight (less than 2500 g) (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.51; 1 trial, 1298 women, low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether it makes any difference to the risk of gestational diabetes (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.73) or maternal adverse events (hypercalcaemia no events; hypercalciuria RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 3.97; 1 trial, 1298 women,) because the certainty of the evidence for both outcomes was found to be very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe included 30 trials (7033 women) across three separate comparisons. Our GRADE assessments ranged from moderate to very low, with downgrading decisions based on limitations in study design, imprecision and indirectness.\nSupplementing pregnant women with vitamin D alone probably reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, low birthweight and may reduce the risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage. It may make little or no difference in the risk of having a preterm birth < 37 weeks' gestation. Supplementing pregnant women with vitamin D and calcium probably reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia but may increase the risk of preterm births < 37 weeks (these findings warrant further research). Supplementing pregnant women with vitamin D and other nutrients may make little or no difference in the risk of preterm birth < 37 weeks' gestation or low birthweight (less than 2500 g). Additional rigorous high quality and larger randomised trials are required to evaluate the effects of vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy, particularly in relation to the risk of maternal adverse events.\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": "Supplementing pregnant women with vitamin D alone probably reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, low birthweight and the risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage. It may make little or no difference in the risk of having a preterm birth < 37 weeks' gestation. Supplementing pregnant women with vitamin D and calcium probably reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia but may increase the risk of preterm births < 37 weeks (these findings warrant further research). Supplementing pregnant women with vitamin D and other nutrients may make little or no difference in the risk of preterm birth or low birthweight (less than 2500 g) and the effects for gestational diabetes and maternal adverse events are unclear. Additional rigorous high quality and larger randomised trials are required to evaluate the effects of vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy, particularly in relation to the risk of maternal adverse events." } ]
query-laysum	7438	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFollowing traumatic brain injury (TBI) there is an increased prevalence of depression compared to the general population. It is unknown whether non-pharmacological interventions for depression are effective for people with TBI.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for depression in adults and children with TBI at reducing the diagnosis and severity of symptoms of depression.\nSearch methods\nWe ran the most recent search on 11 February 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), three other databases and clinical trials registers. Relevant conference proceedings and journals were handsearched, as were the reference lists of identified studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions for depression in adults and children who had a TBI.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected trials from the search results, then assessed risk of bias and extracted data from the included trials. The authors contacted trial investigators to obtain missing information. We rated the overall quality of the evidence of the primary outcomes using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nSix studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 334 adult participants. We identified no studies that included children as participants. All studies were affected by high risk of bias due to a lack of blinding of participants and personnel; five studies were affected by high risk of bias for lack of blinding of outcome assessors. There was high or unclear risk of biases affecting some studies across all the Cochrane risk of bias measures.\nThree studies compared a psychological intervention (either cognitive behaviour therapy or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy) with a control intervention. Data regarding depression symptom outcome measures were combined in a meta-analysis, but did not find an effect in favour of treatment (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.47 to 0.19; Z = 0.83; P = 0.41). The other comparisons comprised of single studies of depression symptoms and compared; cognitive behaviour therapy versus supportive psychotherapy (SMD -0.09; 95% CI -0.65 to 0.48; Z = 0.30; P = 0.77); repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation plus tricyclic antidepressant (rTMS + TCA) versus tricyclic antidepressant alone (SMD -0.84; 95% CI -1.36 to -0.32; Z = 3;19, P = 0.001); and a supervised exercise program versus exercise as usual (SMD -0.43; 95% CI -0.88 to 0.03; Z = 1.84; P = 0.07). There was very-low quality evidence, small effect sizes and wide variability of results, suggesting that no comparisons showed a reliable effect for any intervention.\nOnly one study mentioned minor, transient adverse events from repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe review did not find compelling evidence in favour of any intervention. Future studies should focus on participants with a diagnosed TBI and include only participants who have a diagnosis of depression, or who record scores above a clinical cutoff on a depression measure. There is a need for additional RCTs that include a comparison between an intervention and a control that replicates the effect of the attention given to participants during an active treatment.\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 six studies, with a total of 334 adult participants. We found no studies that included people younger than 18 years of age. Four studies investigated psychological interventions. One study investigated an exercise intervention, and another investigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)." } ]
query-laysum	7439	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe prevalence of epilepsy among people with intellectual disabilities is much higher than in the general population. Seizures in this population are often complex and refractory to treatment and antiepileptic medication may have a profound effect upon behaviour (Kerr 1997).\nThis is an updated version of a Cochrane Review first published in Issue 3, 2007.\nObjectives\nTo assess the data available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy of antiepileptic drug (AED) interventions in people with epilepsy and intellectual disabilities.\nSearch methods\nFor the latest update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register (2 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO) (2 September 2014), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 3 September 2014) and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost, 1887 to 3 September 2014).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and a learning disability.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed epilepsy/seizure, behavioural and cognitive outcomes, as well as quality of life and adverse effects.\nMain results\nWe included 14 RCTs (1116 participants) in the present review. Data were heterogenous and a descriptive analysis is presented. In the majority of cases where antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were trialled in this population, we found moderate reductions in seizure frequency in that there was a significantly higher rate of responders (reduction of 50% or more) in the treatment group compared with the placebo group, with some studies reporting a higher incidence of seizure freedom in the treatment group. In general, AEDs that are proven to be effective in the general epilepsy population are also effective for refractory epilepsy in people with intellectual disability. It is not possible to comment on the relative efficacy of medications, making clinical decisions difficult.\nIn trial settings patients continued on treatment in the majority of cases. Placebo groups often experienced fewer adverse events. Where adverse events were experienced they appeared similar to those in the general population. The methods by which adverse events were recorded and reported appeared to be inconsistent, resulting in very large variation between studies. This is problematic as clinically relevant interpretation of these findings is limited.\nThe quality of evidence provided in the present review is low to moderate. Additionally the majority of studies lacked or used non-reliable measures of behavioural exacerbation. However, where measured, little obvious impact on behaviour was seen in terms of behaviour disorder.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review broadly supports the use of AEDs to reduce seizure frequency in people with refractory epilepsy and intellectual disability. The evidence suggests that adverse events are similar to those in the general population and that behavioural adverse events leading to discontinuation are rare; however, other adverse effects are under-researched.\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 evidence provided by this review is low to moderate. There is a large amount of variation across the studies in that different studies used different AEDs and reported different outcomes. Due to the inconsistencies between studies, not all studies could be included in the meta-analyses. Therefore the statistical analysis in the present update is limited.\nOverall there appear to be very few high quality studies assessing pharmacological interventions for people with epilepsy and intellectual disability. We hope that further research will be conducted in this area to provide a more thorough understanding." } ]
query-laysum	7440	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTeeth that have suffered trauma can fuse to the surrounding bone in a process called dental ankylosis. Ankylosed permanent front teeth fail to erupt during facial growth and can become displaced, thus resulting in functional and aesthetic problems. Dental ankylosis is also associated with root resorption, which may eventually lead to the loss of affected teeth. Different interventions for the management of ankylosed permanent front teeth have been described, but it is unclear which are the most effective.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of any intervention that can be used in the treatment of ankylosed permanent front teeth.\nSearch methods\nThe following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 3 August 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 3 August 2015), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 3 August 2015) and LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 3 August 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention for treating displaced ankylosed permanent front teeth in individuals of any age. Treatments could be compared with one another, with placebo or with no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo independent review authors screened studies independently. Full papers were obtained for potentially relevant trials. Although no study was included, the authors had planned to extract data independently and to analyse the data according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nNo randomised controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria were identified.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe were unable to identify any reports of randomised controlled trials regarding the efficacy of different treatment options for ankylosed permanent front teeth. The lack of high level evidence for the management of this health problem emphasises the need for well designed clinical trials on this topic, which conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review was carried out to assess how effective different treatments are for treating permanent front teeth that have been damaged and then fused to the bone (ankylosed front teeth)." } ]
query-laysum	7441	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nWhilst carrying out dental procedures under general anaesthesia (GA), practitioners routinely give local anaesthetics (LA) intraoperatively to children. Local anaesthetics are used to help manage postoperative pain and reduce bleeding and the physiological response to procedures. Studies of effectiveness of intraoperative LA to date have reported contradictory results.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of intraoperative local anaesthesia for reducing postoperative pain following general anaesthesia for dental treatment in children and young people aged 17 years or younger.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 02 January 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 02 January 2014) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 02 January 2014). We searched for ongoing trials in the US National Institutes of Health Register, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) Clinical Trials Portal. We did not place any restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials in which local anaesthetic was given intraoperatively under general anaesthesia for dental treatment of children and young people aged 17 years or younger.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We contacted authors to clarify omissions in trial reports. In the 'Summary of findings' tables, we elected to report the outcomes pain, distress, postoperative bleeding, and physiological parameters related to the general anaesthetic, as we considered these to be the outcomes of greatest importance to readers of the review.\nMain results\nWe included 14 trials in this review, with 1152 randomised participants. The studies were published between 1990 and 2009 and were conducted in the United Kingdom, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. The age of participants ranged from 2 to 40 years. Three studies were at an overall high risk of bias, seven studies were at an unclear risk of bias, and we judged four studies to be at low risk of bias.\nThe clinical heterogeneity of the included studies precluded pooling of studies in terms of method of administration of LA (e.g., intraligamental injection, infiltration injection, or topical delivery) and variation in the use of supplementary analgesics and follow-up time.\nOf the seven studies where administration of LA was by infiltration injection, six studies (very low-quality body of evidence, 542 participants analysed, 1 study had overall high risk of bias, 4 studies had overall unclear risk of bias, 1 study had overall low risk of bias) measured postoperative pain. The results were equivocal. There was a decrease in bleeding and increase in soft tissue damage in the LA groups, but we did not judge this to be clinically significant.\nIn the 2 studies where administration of LA was by intraligamental injection, there was no difference in mean pain scores, and they did not report any soft tissue damage (very low-quality body of evidence, 115 participants analysed, 1 study had overall high risk of bias, 1 study had overall unclear risk of bias).\nOne 3-armed study (very low-quality body of evidence, 54 participants analysed, overall high risk of bias) compared the effects of intraligamental and infiltration LA injection with no treatment. There was no evidence of a mean difference in pain, distress, or postoperative anxiety among the three groups.\nFour studies (very low-quality body of evidence, 343 participants analysed, 2 studies had overall low risk of bias, 2 studies had overall unclear risk of bias) evaluated the effects of topical LA compared with no treatment or placebo. One study (overall unclear risk of bias) with a no-treatment comparator reported lower mean pain in the LA group; all other studies reported no difference in mean pain scores. Two studies reported on bleeding (overall unclear risk of bias): One study reported a clinically insignificant increase in bleeding with no treatment; the other reported no difference.\nNone of the studies reported on participant or child satisfaction.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn this review, it was difficult to reach firm conclusions as to the benefit of using local anaesthetic for dental treatment under general anaesthesia. The information reported in the included studies was comprehensive and applicable to the review question, but ultimately it was not sufficient to address the objective of the review. We were unable to pool the included studies in a meta-analysis because of substantial variation in outcome measures, interventions, and treatment types. The use of supplementary analgesia further obscured the effect of local anaesthetics.\nBased on the literature review and the results of this review, we recommend further randomised controlled trials that minimise bias through adequate allocation concealment and blinding of participants and assessors, and assess the effect of intraoperative local anaesthetic on the volume and type of anaesthetic used and on the cardiovascular system in participants receiving supplementary analgesics as well. Researchers should give consideration to the impact of any changes on the health and well-being of the participant and report baseline measures of pain or distress, or both, and preoperative anxiety.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Do injections of local anaesthetic given whilst children and young people (aged 17 years or younger) are having dental treatment under general anaesthetic reduce the amount of pain felt afterwards?" } ]
query-laysum	7442	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMultiple myeloma is a bone marrow-based hematological malignancy accounting for approximately two per cent of cancers. First-line treatment for transplant-ineligible individuals consists of multiple drug combinations of bortezomib (V), lenalidomide (R), or thalidomide (T). However, access to these medicines is restricted in many countries worldwide.\nObjectives\nTo assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of multiple drug combinations of V, R, and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma and to inform an application for the inclusion of these medicines into the World Health Organization's (WHO) list of essential medicines.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL and MEDLINE, conference proceedings and study registries on 14 February 2019 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multiple drug combinations of V, R and T for adults with newly diagnosed transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing combination therapies of V, R, and T, plus melphalan and prednisone (MP) or dexamethasone (D) for first-line treatment of adults with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma. We excluded trials including adults with relapsed or refractory disease, trials comparing drug therapies to other types of therapy and trials including second-generation novel agents.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included trials. As effect measures we used hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events. An HR or RR < 1 indicates an advantage for the intervention compared to the main comparator MP. Where available, we extracted quality of life (QoL) data (scores of standardised questionnaires). Results quoted are from network meta-analysis (NMA) unless stated.\nMain results\nWe included 25 studies (148 references) comprising 11,403 participants and 21 treatment regimens. Treatments were differentiated between restricted treatment duration (treatment with a pre-specified amount of cycles) and continuous therapy (treatment administered until disease progression, the person becomes intolerant to the drug, or treatment given for a prolonged period). Continuous therapies are indicated with a \"c\". Risk of bias was generally high across studies due to the open-label study design.\nOverall survival (OS)\nEvidence suggests that treatment with RD (HR 0.63 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.99), median OS 55.2 months (35.2 to 87.0)); TMP (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.97), median OS: 46.4 months (35.9 to 60.0)); and VRDc (HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.92), median OS 71.0 months (37.8 to 133.8)) probably increases survival compared to median reported OS of 34.8 months with MP (moderate certainty). Treatment with VMP may result in a large increase in OS, compared to MP (HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.07), median OS 49.7 months (32.5 to 77.3)), low certainty).\nProgression-free survival (PFS)\nTreatment withRD (HR 0.65 (95% CI0.44 to 0.96), median PFS: 24.9 months (16.9 to 36.8)); TMP (HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.78), median PFS:25.7 months (20.8 to 32.4)); VMP (HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.90), median PFS: 28.9 months (18.0 to 46.3)); and VRDc (HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.58), median PFS: 47.6 months (27.9 to 81.0)) may result in a large increase in PFS (low certainty) compared to MP (median reported PFS: 16.2 months).\nAdverse events\nThe risk of polyneuropathies may be lower with RD compared to treatment with MP (RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.99), risk for RD: 0.5% (0.1 to 1.8), mean reported risk for MP: 0.9% (10 of 1074 patients affected), low certainty). However, the CIs are also compatible with no difference or an increase in neuropathies. Treatment with TMP (RR 4.44 (95% CI1.77 to 11.11), risk: 4.0% (1.6 to 10.0)) and VMP (RR 88.22 (95% CI 5.36 to 1451.11), risk: 79.4% (4.8 to 1306.0)) probably results in a large increase in polyneuropathies compared to MP (moderate certainty). No study reported the amount of participants with grade ≥ 3 polyneuropathies for treatment with VRDc.\nVMP probably increases the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MP (RR 1.28 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.54), risk for VMP: 46.2% (38.3 to 55.6), mean risk for MP: 36.1% (177 of 490 patients affected), moderate certainty). RD, TMP, and VRDc were not connected to MP in the network and the risk of SAEs could not be compared.\nTreatment with RD (RR 4.18 (95% CI 2.13 to 8.20), NMA-risk: 38.5% (19.6 to 75.4)); and TMP (RR 4.10 (95% CI 2.40 to 7.01), risk: 37.7% (22.1 to 64.5)) results in a large increase of withdrawals from the trial due to adverse events (high certainty) compared to MP (mean reported risk: 9.2% (77 of 837 patients withdrew)). The risk is probably slightly increased with VMP (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.81), risk: 9.75% (5.8 to 16.7), moderate certainty), while it is much increased with VRDc (RR 8.92 (95% CI 3.82 to 20.84), risk: 82.1% (35.1 to 191.7), high certainty) compared to MP.\nQuality of life\nQoL was reported in four studies for seven different treatment regimens (MP, MPc, RD, RMP, RMPc, TMP, TMPc) and was measured with four different tools. Assessment and reporting differed between studies and could not be meta-analysed. However, all studies reported an improvement of QoL after initiation of anti-myeloma treatment for all assessed treatment regimens.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on our four pre-selected comparisons of interest, continuous treatment with VRD had the largest survival benefit compared with MP, while RD and TMP also probably considerably increase survival. However, treatment combinations of V, R, and T also substantially increase the incidence of AEs, and lead to a higher risk of treatment discontinuation. Their effectiveness and safety profiles may best be analysed in further randomised head-to-head trials. Further trials should focus on consistent reporting of safety outcomes and should use a standardised instrument to evaluate QoL to ensure comparability of treatment-combinations.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"VRDc\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "showed the highest overall survival benefits, compared to MP.RDandTMPalso improved OS compared to MP. However, these combinations of drugs also led to more adverse events compared to MP, and led to more people stopping treatment. More trials are needed that look carefully at both harms and QoL." } ]
query-laysum	7443	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nContractures are a common complication of neurological and non-neurological conditions, and are characterised by a reduction in joint mobility. Stretch is widely used for the treatment and prevention of contractures. However, it is not clear whether stretch is effective. This review is an update of the original 2010 version of this review.\nObjectives\nThe aim of this review was to determine the effects of stretch on contractures in people with, or at risk of developing, contractures.The outcomes of interest were joint mobility, quality of life, pain, activity limitations, participation restrictions, spasticity and adverse events.\nSearch methods\nIn November 2015 we searched CENTRAL, DARE, HTA; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; SCI-EXPANDED; PEDro and trials registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of stretch applied for the purpose of treating or preventing contractures.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The outcomes of interest were joint mobility, quality of life, pain, activity limitations, participation restrictions and adverse events. We evaluated outcomes in the short term (up to one week after the last stretch) and in the long term (more than one week). We expressed effects as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses with a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE.\nMain results\nForty-nine studies with 2135 participants met the inclusion criteria. No study performed stretch for more than seven months. Just over half the studies (51%) were at low risk of selection bias; all studies were at risk of detection bias for self reported outcomes such as pain and at risk of performance bias due to difficulty of blinding the intervention. However, most studies were at low risk of detection bias for objective outcomes including range of motion, and the majority of studies were free from attrition and selective reporting biases. The effect of these biases were unlikely to be important, given that there was little benefit with treatment. There was high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on joint mobility in people with neurological conditions (MD 2°; 95% CI 0° to 3°; 26 studies with 699 participants) or non-neurological conditions (SMD 0.2, 95% CI 0 to 0.3, 19 studies with 925 participants).\nIn people with neurological conditions, it was uncertain whether stretch had clinically important short-term effects on pain (SMD 0.2; 95% CI -0.1 to 0.5; 5 studies with 174 participants) or activity limitations (SMD 0.2; 95% CI -0.1 to 0.5; 8 studies with 247 participants). No trials examined the short-term effects of stretch on quality of life or participation restrictions in people with neurological conditions. Five studies involving 145 participants reported eight adverse events including skin breakdown, bruising, blisters and pain but it was not possible to statistically analyse these data.\nIn people with non-neurological conditions, there was high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on pain (SMD -0.2, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.1; 7 studies with 422 participants) and moderate-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on quality of life (SMD 0.3, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.7; 2 studies with 97 participants). The short-term effect of stretch on activity limitations (SMD 0.1; 95% CI -0.2 to 0.3; 5 studies with 356 participants) and participation restrictions were uncertain (SMD -0.2; 95% CI -0.6 to 0.1; 2 studies with 192 participants). Nine studies involving 635 participants reported 41 adverse events including numbness, pain, Raynauds’ phenomenon, venous thrombosis, need for manipulation under anaesthesia, wound infections, haematoma, flexion deficits and swelling but it was not possible to statistically analyse these data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important effects on joint mobility in people with or without neurological conditions if performed for less than seven months. Sensitivity analyses indicate results were robust in studies at risk of selection and detection biases in comparison to studies at low risk of bias. Sub-group analyses also suggest the effect of stretch is consistent in people with different types of neurological or non-neurological conditions. The effects of stretch performed for periods longer than seven months have not been investigated. There was moderate- and high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on quality of life or pain in people with non-neurological conditions, respectively. The short-term effects of stretch on quality of life and pain in people with neurological conditions, and the short-term effects of stretch on activity limitations and participation restrictions for people with and without neurological conditions are uncertain.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of life (high score is better outcome)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Neurological conditions: no studies\nNon-neurological conditions: stretch improves quality of life by 1% (0% to 3% better)" } ]
query-laysum	7444	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nIschaemic heart disease including heart failure is the most common cause of death in the world, and the incidence of the condition is rapidly increasing. Heart failure is characterised by symptoms such as fatigue and breathlessness during light activity, as well as disordered breathing during sleep. In particular, sleep disordered breathing (SDB), including central sleep apnoea (CSA) and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), is highly prevalent in people with chronic heart failure. A previous meta-analysis demonstrated that positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy dramatically increased the survival rate of people with heart failure who had CSA, and thus could contribute to improving the prognosis of these individuals. However, recent trials found that adaptive servo-ventilation (ASV) including PAP therapy had a higher risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. A meta-analysis that included recent trials was therefore needed.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of positive airway pressure therapy for people with heart failure who experience central sleep apnoea.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection on 7 February 2019 with no limitations on date, language, or publication status. We also searched two clinical trials registers in July 2019 and checked the reference lists of primary studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe excluded cross-over trials and included individually randomised controlled trials, reported as full-texts, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted outcome data from the included studies. We double-checked that data had been entered correctly by comparing the data presented in the systematic review with study reports. We analysed dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and continuous data as mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. Furthermore, we performed subgroup analysis in the ASV group or continuous PAP group separately. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the quality of evidence as it relates to those studies that contribute data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 16 randomised controlled trials involving a total of 2125 participants. The trials evaluated PAP therapy consisting of ASV or continuous PAP therapy for 1 to 31 months. Many trials included participants with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Only one trial included participants with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.\nWe are uncertain about the effects of PAP therapy on all-cause mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.21; participants = 1804; studies = 6; I2 = 47%; very low-quality evidence). We found moderate-quality evidence of no difference between PAP therapy and usual care on cardiac-related mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.24; participants = 1775; studies = 5; I2 = 11%). We found low-quality evidence of no difference between PAP therapy and usual care on all-cause rehospitalisation (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30; participants = 1533; studies = 5; I2 = 40%) and cardiac-related rehospitalisation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.35; participants = 1533; studies = 5; I2 = 40%). In contrast, PAP therapy showed some indication of an improvement in quality of life scores assessed by all measurements (SMD −0.32, 95% CI −0.67 to 0.04; participants = 1617; studies = 6; I2 = 76%; low-quality evidence) and by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MD −0.51, 95% CI −0.78 to −0.24; participants = 1458; studies = 4; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) compared with usual care. Death due to pneumonia (N = 1, 3% of PAP group); cardiac arrest (N = 18, 3% of PAP group); heart transplantation (N = 8, 1% of PAP group); cardiac worsening (N = 3, 9% of PAP group); deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (N = 1, 3% of PAP group); and foot ulcer (N = 1, 3% of PAP group) occurred in the PAP therapy group, whereas cardiac arrest (N = 16, 2% of usual care group); heart transplantation (N = 12, 2% of usual care group); cardiac worsening (N = 5, 14% of usual care group); and duodenal ulcer (N = 1, 3% of usual care group) occurred in the usual care group across three trials.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effect of PAP therapy on all-cause mortality was uncertain. In addition, although we found evidence that PAP therapy did not reduce the risk of cardiac-related mortality and rehospitalisation, there was some indication of an improvement in quality of life for heart failure patients with CSA. Furthermore, the evidence was insufficient to determine whether adverse events were more common with PAP than with usual care. These findings were limited by low- or very low-quality evidence. PAP therapy may be worth considering for individuals with heart failure to improve quality of life.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Ischaemic heart disease including heart failure is the most common cause of death in the world, and the incidence of the condition is rapidly increasing. Heart failure is characterised by symptoms such as fatigue and breathlessness during light activity, as well as disordered breathing during sleep. In particular, sleep disordered breathing, including central sleep apnoea (CSA) and obstructive sleep apnoea, is highly prevalent in people with chronic heart failure." } ]
query-laysum	7445	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEpidemiological evidence has suggested a link between use of beta₂-agonists and increased asthma mortality. Much debate has surrounded possible causal links for this association, and whether regular (daily) long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) are safe, particularly when used in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review that now includes data from two large trials including 11,679 adults and 6208 children; both were mandated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).\nObjectives\nTo assess risks of mortality and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials that randomised participants with chronic asthma to regular salmeterol and ICS versus the same dose of ICS.\nSearch methods\nWe identified randomised trials using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. We checked websites of clinical trials registers for unpublished trial data. We also checked FDA submissions in relation to salmeterol. The date of the most recent search was 10 October 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel-design randomised trials involving adults, children, or both with asthma of any severity who were randomised to treatment with regular salmeterol and ICS (in separate or combined inhalers) versus the same dose of ICS of at least 12 weeks in duration.\nData collection and analysis\nWe conducted the review according to standard procedures expected by Cochrane. We obtained unpublished data on mortality and SAEs from the sponsors, from ClinicalTrials.gov, and from FDA submissions. We assessed our confidence in the evidence according to current GRADE recommendations.\nMain results\nWe have included in this review 41 studies (27,951 participants) in adults and adolescents, along with eight studies (8453 participants) in children. We judged that the overall risk of bias was low for all-cause events, and we obtained data on SAEs from all study authors. All except 542 adults (and none of the children) were given salmeterol and fluticasone in the same (combination) inhaler.\nDeaths\nEleven of a total of 14,233 adults taking regular salmeterol and ICS died, as did 13 of 13,718 taking regular ICS at the same dose. The pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.78; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). In other words, for every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, one death occurred among those on ICS alone, and the corresponding risk among those taking salmeterol and ICS was also one death (95% CI 0 to 2 deaths).\nNo children died, and no adults or children died of asthma, so we remain uncertain about mortality in children and about asthma mortality in any age group.\nNon-fatal serious adverse events\nA total of 332 adults receiving regular salmeterol with ICS experienced a non-fatal SAE of any cause, compared to 282 adults receiving regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.14 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.33; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, 21 adults on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 23 adults (95% CI 20 to 27).\nSixty-five of 4229 children given regular salmeterol with ICS suffered an SAE of any cause, compared to 62 of 4224 children given regular ICS. The pooled Peto OR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, 15 children on ICS alone had an SAE, and the corresponding risk for those on salmeterol and ICS was 15 children (95% CI 11 to 22).\nAsthma-related serious adverse events\nEighty and 67 adults in each group, respectively, experienced an asthma-related non-fatal SAE. The pooled Peto OR was 1.15 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.59; participants = 27,951; studies = 41; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For every 1000 adults treated for 25 weeks, five receiving ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those on salmeterol and ICS was six adults (95% CI 4 to 8).\nTwenty-nine children taking salmeterol and ICS and 23 children taking ICS alone reported asthma-related events. The pooled Peto OR was 1.25 (95% CI 0.72 to 2.16; participants = 8453; studies = 8; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). For every 1000 children treated for 23 weeks, five receiving an ICS alone had an asthma-related SAE, and the corresponding risk among those receiving salmeterol and ICS was seven children (95% CI 4 to 12).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe did not find a difference in the risk of death or serious adverse events in either adults or children. However, trial authors reported no asthma deaths among 27,951 adults or 8453 children randomised to regular salmeterol and ICS or ICS alone over an average of six months. Therefore, the risk of dying from asthma on either treatment was very low, but we remain uncertain about whether the risk of dying from asthma is altered by adding salmeterol to ICS.\nInclusion of new trials has increased the precision of the estimates for non-fatal SAEs of any cause. We can now say that the worst-case estimate is that at least 152 adults and 139 children must be treated with combination salmeterol and ICS for six months for one additional person to be admitted to the hospital (compared to treatment with ICS alone). These possible risks still have to be weighed against the benefits experienced by people who take combination treatment.\nHowever more than 90% of prescribed treatment was taken in the new trials, so the effects observed may be different from those seen with salmeterol in combination with ICS in daily practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Is it safe to add regular salmeterol to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for adults or children with asthma?" } ]
query-laysum	7446	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBiologics are used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and many other conditions. While the efficacy of biologics has been established, there is uncertainty regarding the adverse effects of this treatment. Since important risks such as lymphomas, serious infections and tuberculosis (TB) reactivation may be more common to the biologics but occur in small numbers across the various indications, we planned to combine the results from biologics used in many conditions to obtain much needed risk estimates.\nObjectives\nTo compare the potential adverse effects of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), interleukin (IL)-1 antagonist (anakinra), IL-6 antagonist (tocilizumab), anti-CD28 (abatacept), and anti-B cell (rituximab) therapy in patients with any disease condition except human immunodeficiency disease (HIV/AIDS).\nMethods\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and open-label extension (OLE) studies that studied one of the nine biologics for use in any indication (with the exception of HIV/AIDS) and that reported our pre-specified adverse outcomes (serious adverse events (SAEs), withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs), total AEs, serious infections; specific AEs, namely, tuberculosis (TB) reactivation, lymphoma and congestive heart failure) were considered for inclusion. We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (to January 2010). Identifying search results and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. For the network meta-analysis, we performed both Bayesian mixed-treatment comparison models and arm-based generalized linear mixed models.\nMain results\nWe included 160 RCTs with 48,676 participants and 46 extension studies with 11,954 participants. The median duration of RCTs was six months and 13 months for OLEs. Data were limited for TB reactivation, lymphoma, and congestive heart failure. Using standard dose, compared with control, biologics as a group were associated with a statistically significant higher rate of total AEs (odds ratio (OR) 1.28, 95% credible interval (CI) 1.09 to 1.50; number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) = 22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 14 to 60), withdrawals due to AEs (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.86; NNTH = 26, 95% CI 15 to 58), serious infections (OR, 1.37, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.82, NNTH = 108 95% CI, 50 to 989) and TB reactivation (OR 4.68, 95% CI 1.18 to 18.60; NNTH = 681, 95% CI 143 to 14706).\nThe rate of SAEs, lymphoma and congestive heart failure were not statistically significantly different between biologics and control treatment.\nCertolizumab pegol (OR 4.75, 95% CI 1.52 to 18.65; NNTH = 12, 95% CI 4 to 79) and anakinra (OR 4.05, 95% CI 1.22 to 16.84; NNTH = 14, 95% CI 4 to 181) were associated with a statistically significantly higher risk of serious infections compared with control treatment. Compared with control, certolizumab was associated with a statistically significantly higher risk of SAEs (as defined in included studies: OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.32; NNTH = 18, 95% CI 9 to 162). Infliximab was associated with a statistically significantly higher risk of total AEs OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.35; NNTH = 13, 95% CI 8 to 505) and withdrawals due to AEs compared with control (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.40 to 4.14; NNTH = 10, 95% CI 5 to 30).\nThe overall numbers were relatively small for indirect comparisons. Indirect comparisons revealed that certolizumab pegol was associated with a statistically significantly higher odds of serious infections compared with abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab and rituximab; and anakinra was statistically significantly more likely than rituximab to be associated with serious infections. Certolizumab pegol was associated with a statistically significant higher odds of SAEs compared with adalimumab and abatacept. No statistically significant differences were noted between biologics in total AEs or withdrawals due to AEs in indirect comparisons.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, in the short term biologics were associated with statistically significantly higher rates of serious infections, TB reactivation, total AEs and withdrawals due to AEs. Serious infections included opportunistic infections as well as bacterial infections in most studies. Some biologics had a statistically higher association with certain adverse outcomes compared with control, but there was no consistency across the outcomes so caution is needed in interpreting these results.\nThere is a need for more research regarding the long-term safety of biologics and an urgent need for comparative safety reports of different biologics; preferably without industry involvement. National and international registries and other types of large databases are relevant sources for providing complementary evidence regarding the short- and longer-term safety of biologics.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Drop-out of study due to side effects\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Among people who took any biologic, 137 out of 1,000 dropped out of the study due to side effects compared with 98 people out of 1,000 who took placebo (4% absolute harm)." } ]
query-laysum	7447	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe para-aortic lymph nodes (located along the major vessels in the mid and upper abdomen) are a common place for disease recurrence after treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer. The para-aortic area is not covered by standard pelvic radiotherapy fields and so treatment to the pelvis alone is inadequate for women at a high risk of occult cancer within para-aortic lymph nodes. Extended-field radiotherapy (RT) widens the pelvic RT field to include the para-aortic lymph node area. Extended-field RT may improve outcomes in women with locally advanced cervical cancer by treating occult disease in para-aortic nodes not identified at pretreatment imaging. However, RT treatment of the para-aortic area can cause severe adverse effects, so may increase harms.\nStudies of pelvic chemoradiotherapy (CRT) demonstrated improved survival rates compared to pelvic RT alone. CRT is now the standard of care in the treatment of locally advanced cervical cancer. Studies comparing pelvic RT alone (without concurrent chemotherapy) with extended-field RT should therefore be viewed with caution, since they compare treatments against what is now substandard treatment (pelvic RT alone). This review should therefore be read with this in mind and comparisons with pelvic RT cannot be extrapolated to pelvic CRT.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and toxicity of extended-field radiotherapy in women undergoing first-line treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to August week 4, 2018), and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2018, week 35). We checked registers of clinical trials, grey literature, conference reports, and citation lists of included studies to August 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and toxicity of extended-field RT for locally advanced cervical cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected potentially relevant RCTs, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, compared results, and made judgements on the quality and certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or consultation with a third review author.\nMain results\nFive studies met the inclusion criteria. Three included studies compared extended-field RT versus pelvic RT, one included study compared extended-field RT with pelvic CRT, and one study compared extended-field CRT versus pelvic CRT.\nExtended-field radiotherapy versus pelvic radiotherapy alone\nCompared to pelvic RT, extended-field RT probably reduces the risk of death (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.94; 1 study; 337 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and para-aortic lymph node recurrence (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.70; 2 studies; 477 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although there may or may not have been improvement in the risk of disease progression (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 study; 337 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and severe adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41; 2 studies; 776 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nExtended-field radiotherapy versus pelvic chemoradiotherapy\nIn a comparison of extended-field RT versus pelvic CRT, women given pelvic CRT probably had a lower risk of death (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.64; 1 study; 389 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and disease progression (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.72; 1 study; 389 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants given extended-field RT may or may not have had a lower risk of para-aortic lymph node recurrence (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.99; 1 study; 389 participants; low-certainty evidence) and acute severe adverse events (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.11; 1 study; 388 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no clear differences in terms of late severe adverse events among the comparison groups (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.62; 1 study; 386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nExtended-field chemoradiotherapy versus pelvic chemoradiotherapy\nVery low-certainty evidence obtained from one small study (74 participants) showed that, compared to pelvic CRT, extended-field CRT may or may not have reduced risk of death (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.96) and disease progression (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.87). There were no clear differences between the groups in the risks of para-aortic lymph node recurrence (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.54; very low-certainty evidence) and severe adverse events (acute: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.39; late: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.59; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-certainty evidence shows that, compared with pelvic RT alone, extended-field RT probably improves overall survival and reduces risk of para-aortic lymph node recurrence. However, pelvic RT alone would now be considered substandard treatment, so this result cannot be extrapolated to modern standards of care. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that pelvic CRT may increase overall and progression-free survival compared to extended-field RT, although there may or may not be a higher rate of para-aortic recurrence and acute adverse events. Extended-field CRT versus pelvic CRT may improve overall or progression-free survival, but these findings should be interpreted with caution due to very low-certainty evidence.\nHigh-quality RCTs, comparing modern treatment techniques in CRT, are needed to more fully inform treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer without obvious para-aortic node involvement.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched databases from their inception to August 2018 and found five studies that met the inclusion criteria. Three studies compared extended-field RT versus pelvic RT. None of these three studies compared against the current gold-standard of pelvic CRT. One study compared extended-field RT versus pelvic CRT and one study compared extended-field CRT versus pelvic CRT." } ]
query-laysum	7448	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for persisting pain in children acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. Views on children's pain have changed over time and relief of pain is now seen as important. In the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, and it was assumed that children quickly forgot about painful experiences.\nWe designed a suite of seven reviews in chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol as priority areas) to review the evidence for children's pain using pharmacological interventions.\nAs one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity for children and adolescents in the world today, childhood cancer (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Specific mortality and morbidity data relating to children are not currently identified. All childhood cancer rates are on the rise; for example, in the USA approximately 10,380 children aged under 15 years were expected to be diagnosed with cancer by the end of 2016. However, with survival rates also increasing, over 80% of paediatric cancer patients are expected to survive for five years or more, thus identifying the need to address pain management in this population.\nCancer pain in infants, children, and adolescents is primarily nociceptive pain with negative long term effects. Cancer-related pain is generally caused directly by the tumour itself such as compressing on the nerve or inflammation of the organs. Cancer-related pain generally occurs as a result of perioperative procedures, nerve damage caused by radiation or chemotherapy treatments, or mucositis. However, this review focused on pain caused directly by the tumour itself such as nerve infiltration, external nerve compression, and other inflammatory events.\nNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to treat pain, reduce fever, and for their anti-inflammatory properties. They are commonly used within paediatric pain management. NSAIDs are currently licensed for use in western countries, however not approved for infants aged under three months. Primary adverse effects include gastrointestinal issues and possible renal impairment with long term use. Other adverse effects in children include diarrhoea, headache, nausea, constipation, rash, dizziness, and abdominal pain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy, and adverse events, of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) used to treat cancer-related pain in children and adolescents aged from birth and 17 years, in any setting.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 21 February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, double-blind trials of any dose, and any route, treating cancer-related pain in children and adolescents, comparing NSAIDs with placebo or an active comparator.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods. We planned to assess GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nNo studies were eligible for inclusion in this review.\nThere is no evidence to support or refute the use of NSAIDs for treating cancer-related pain in children and adolescents.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of NSAIDs to treat chronic cancer-related pain in children and adolescents. We are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of NSAIDs to treat chronic cancer-related pain in children and adolescents.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "In February 2017 we searched for randomised controlled clinical trials where any NSAIDs were used to treat any cancer-related pain in people aged from birth to 17 years. We found no studies that met the requirements for this review. Several studies tested NSAIDs on adults in chronic pain, but none in participants aged from birth to 17 years." } ]
query-laysum	7449	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nBariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity is considered when other treatments have failed. The effects of the available bariatric procedures compared with medical management and with each other are uncertain. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003 and most recently updated in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of bariatric surgery for overweight and obesity, including the control of comorbidities.\nSearch methods\nStudies were obtained from searches of numerous databases, supplemented with searches of reference lists and consultation with experts in obesity research. Date of last search was November 2013.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical interventions with non-surgical management of obesity or overweight or comparing different surgical procedures.\nData collection and analysis\nData were extracted by one review author and checked by a second review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and evaluated overall study quality utilising the GRADE instrument.\nMain results\nTwenty-two trials with 1798 participants were included; sample sizes ranged from 15 to 250. Most studies followed participants for 12, 24 or 36 months; the longest follow-up was 10 years. The risk of bias across all domains of most trials was uncertain; just one was judged to have adequate allocation concealment.\nAll seven RCTs comparing surgery with non-surgical interventions found benefits of surgery on measures of weight change at one to two years follow-up. Improvements for some aspects of health-related quality of life (QoL) (two RCTs) and diabetes (five RCTs) were also found. The overall quality of the evidence was moderate. Five studies reported data on mortality, no deaths occurred. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in four studies and ranged from 0% to 37% in the surgery groups and 0% to 25% in the no surgery groups. Between 2% and 13% of participants required reoperations in the five studies that reported these data.\nThree RCTs found that laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (L)(RYGB) achieved significantly greater weight loss and body mass index (BMI) reduction up to five years after surgery compared with laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). Mean end-of-study BMI was lower following LRYGB compared with LAGB: mean difference (MD) -5.2 kg/m² (95% confidence interval (CI) -6.4 to -4.0; P < 0.00001; 265 participants; 3 trials; moderate quality evidence). Evidence for QoL and comorbidities was very low quality. The LRGYB procedure resulted in greater duration of hospitalisation in two RCTs (4/3.1 versus 2/1.5 days) and a greater number of late major complications (26.1% versus 11.6%) in one RCT. In one RCT the LAGB required high rates of reoperation for band removal (9 patients, 40.9%).\nOpen RYGB, LRYGB and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) led to losses of weight and/or BMI but there was no consistent picture as to which procedure was better or worse in the seven included trials. MD was -0.2 kg/m² (95% CI -1.8 to 1.3); 353 participants; 6 trials; low quality evidence) in favour of LRYGB. No statistically significant differences in QoL were found (one RCT). Six RCTs reported mortality; one death occurred following LRYGB. SAEs were reported by one RCT and were higher in the LRYGB group (4.5%) than the LSG group (0.9%). Reoperations ranged from 6.7% to 24% in the LRYGB group and 3.3% to 34% in the LSG group. Effects on comorbidities, complications and additional surgical procedures were neutral, except gastro-oesophageal reflux disease improved following LRYGB (one RCT). One RCT of people with a BMI 25 to 35 and type 2 diabetes found laparoscopic mini-gastric bypass resulted in greater weight loss and improvement of diabetes compared with LSG, and had similar levels of complications.\nTwo RCTs found that biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch (BDDS) resulted in greater weight loss than RYGB in morbidly obese patients. End-of-study mean BMI loss was greater following BDDS: MD -7.3 kg/m² (95% CI -9.3 to -5.4); P < 0.00001; 107 participants; 2 trials; moderate quality evidence). QoL was similar on most domains. In one study between 82% to 100% of participants with diabetes had a HbA1c of less than 5% three years after surgery. Reoperations were higher in the BDDS group (16.1% to 27.6%) than the LRYGB group (4.3% to 8.3%). One death occurred in the BDDS group.\nOne RCT comparing laparoscopic duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy versus LRYGB found BMI, excess weight loss, and rates of remission of diabetes and hypertension were similar at 12 months follow-up (very low quality evidence). QoL, SAEs and reoperation rates were not reported. No deaths occurred in either group.\nOne RCT comparing laparoscopic isolated sleeve gastrectomy (LISG) versus LAGB found greater improvement in weight-loss outcomes following LISG at three years follow-up (very low quality evidence). QoL, mortality and SAEs were not reported. Reoperations occurred in 20% of the LAGB group and in 10% of the LISG group.\nOne RCT (unpublished) comparing laparoscopic gastric imbrication with LSG found no statistically significant difference in weight loss between groups (very low quality evidence). QoL and comorbidities were not reported. No deaths occurred. Two participants in the gastric imbrication group required reoperation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSurgery results in greater improvement in weight loss outcomes and weight associated comorbidities compared with non-surgical interventions, regardless of the type of procedures used. When compared with each other, certain procedures resulted in greater weight loss and improvements in comorbidities than others. Outcomes were similar between RYGB and sleeve gastrectomy, and both of these procedures had better outcomes than adjustable gastric banding. For people with very high BMI, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch resulted in greater weight loss than RYGB. Duodenojejunal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic RYGB had similar outcomes, however this is based on one small trial. Isolated sleeve gastrectomy led to better weight-loss outcomes than adjustable gastric banding after three years follow-up. This was based on one trial only. Weight-related outcomes were similar between laparoscopic gastric imbrication and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in one trial. Across all studies adverse event rates and reoperation rates were generally poorly reported. Most trials followed participants for only one or two years, therefore the long-term effects of surgery remain unclear.\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": "Obesity is associated with many health problems and a higher risk of death. Bariatric surgery for obesity is usually only considered when other treatments have failed. We aimed to compare surgical interventions with non-surgical interventions for obesity (such as drugs, diet and exercise) and to compare different surgical procedures. Bariatric surgery can be considered for people with a body mass index (BMI = kg/m²) greater than 40, or for those with a BMI less than 40 and obesity-related diseases such as diabetes." } ]
query-laysum	7450	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nAge-related cataract affects both eyes in most cases. Most people undergo cataract surgery in both eyes on separate days, referred to as delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). An alternative procedure involves operating on both eyes on the same day, but as two separate procedures, known as immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS). Potential advantages of ISBCS include fewer hospital visits for the patient, faster visual recovery, and lower healthcare costs. Nevertheless, concerns exist about possible bilateral, postoperative, sight-threatening adverse effects with ISBCS. Therefore, there is a clear need for evaluating evidence regarding the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of ISBCS versus DSBCS.\nObjectives\nTo assess the safety of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts and to summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with the use of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts (primary objectives). The secondary objective was to assess visual and patient-reported outcomes of ISBCS compared to DSBCS in people with bilateral age-related cataracts.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 5); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; the WHO ICTRP; and DARE and NHS EED on the CRD Database on 11 May 2021. There were no language restrictions. We limited the searches to a date range of 2007 onwards.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess complications, refractive outcomes, best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with ISBCS compared to DSBCS. We included non-randomised (NRSs), prospective, and retrospective cohort studies comparing ISBCS and DSBCS for safety assessment, because of the rare incidence of important adverse events. To assess cost-effectiveness of ISBCS compared to DSBCS, we included both full and partial economic evaluations, and both trial-based and model-based economic evaluations.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures and assessed risk of bias for NRSs using the ROBINS-I tool. For cost-evaluations, we used the CHEC-list, the CHEERS-checklist, and the NICE-checklist to investigate risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with the GRADE tool. We reported results for economic evaluations narratively.\nMain results\nWe included 14 studies in the review; two RCTs, seven NRSs, and six economic evaluations (one study was both an NRS and economic evaluation). The studies reported on 276,260 participants (7384 for ISBCS and 268,876 for DSBCS) and were conducted in Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Iran, (South) Korea, Spain (Canary Islands), Sweden, the UK, and the USA. Overall, we considered the included RCTs to be at 'high to some concerns' risk of bias for complications, 'some concerns' risk of bias for refractive outcomes and visual acuity, and 'high' risk of bias for PROMs. The overall risk of bias for NRSs was graded 'serious' regarding complications and 'serious to critical' regarding refractive outcomes.\nWith regard to endophthalmitis, we found that relative effects were estimated imprecisely and with low certainty, so that relative estimates were not reliable. Nonetheless, we found a very low risk of endophthalmitis in both ISBCS (1/14,076 participants) and DSBCS (55/556,246 participants) groups. Based on descriptive evidence and partially weak statistical evidence we found no evidence of an increased risk of endophthalmitis with ISBCS. Regarding refractive outcomes, we found moderate-certainty (RCTs) and low-certainty (NRSs) evidence there was no difference in the percentage of eyes that did not achieve refraction within 1.0 dioptre of target one to three months after surgery (RCTs: risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.26; NRSs: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.75). Similarly, postoperative complications did not differ between groups (RCTs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.40; NRSs: 1.04, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.29), although the certainty of this evidence was very low for both RCTs and NRSs. Furthermore, we found low-certainty (RCTs) to very low-certainty (NRSs) evidence that total costs per participant were lower for ISBCS compared to DSBCS, although results of individual studies could not be pooled. Only one study reported on cost-effectiveness. This study found that ISBCS is cost-effective compared to DSBCS, but did not measure quality-adjusted life years using preferred methods and calculated costs erroneously. Finally, regarding secondary outcomes, we found limited evidence on BCDVA (data of two RCTs could not be pooled, although both studies individually found no difference between groups (very low-certainty evidence)). Regarding PROMs, we found moderate-certainty evidence (RCTs only) that there was no difference between groups one to three months after surgery (standardised mean difference −0.08, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.03).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent evidence supports there are probably no clinically important differences in outcomes between ISBCS and DSBCS, but with lower costs for ISBCS. However, the amount of evidence is limited, and the certainty of the evidence was graded moderate to very low. In addition, there is a need for well-designed cost-effectiveness studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is cataract and how is it treated?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Age-related cataract is a natural ageing process of the lens of the eye, in which the lens becomes cloudy and vision decreases. The only way to treat cataract is by surgery. During surgery, the clouded lens is removed and replaced by an artificial lens, implanted in the eye. Currently, most people undergo cataract surgery on both eyes on different days, with a period of days, weeks, or even months between surgeries, called delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). However, it is also possible to have cataract surgery on both eyes on the same day, called immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS).\nPotential advantages to ISBCS include fewer visits to the hospital, faster visual recovery, and lower healthcare costs. However, there are also potential disadvantages, such as developing complications in both eyes. Also, in ISBCS, outcomes of the first eye cannot be used when performing second-eye surgery, which may result in worse refractive outcomes (increased spectacle dependence)." } ]
query-laysum	7451	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEndotracheal suctioning consists of the mechanical aspiration of pulmonary secretions from the endotracheal tube (ETT) to prevent obstruction. The optimal frequency of ETT suctioning has not been defined.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effect of specific ordered frequency of ETT suctioning ('as scheduled') versus ETT suctioning only in case of indications ('as needed') and of more frequent ETT suctioning versus less frequent ETT suctioning on respiratory morbidity in ventilated newborns.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 10), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 31 October 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 31 October 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to 31 October 2015). We checked the reference lists of retrieved articles and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized, quasi-randomized, and cluster randomized controlled trials comparing different strategies regarding the frequency of ETT suctioning of newborn infants receiving ventilator support.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of trials. The primary outcome was bronchopulmonary dysplasia or chronic lung disease.\nMain results\nWe identified one randomized controlled study recruiting 97 low birthweight infants that met the inclusion criteria. The study was conducted in the UK in 1987 and 1988. Randomized infants received ETT suctioning every six or 12 hours during the first three days of life. The quality of reporting was limited and we rated the trial at high risk of bias. Furthermore, the trial lacked adequate power. There were no statistically significant differences in any of reported outcomes: bronchopulmonary dysplasia (defined as oxygen at more than 30 days; risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.20); incidence of pneumothorax (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.05); intraventricular hemorrhage (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.85); neonatal death (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.37); and time on ventilation (median time 39 hours in the 12-hourly group and 28 hours in the six-hourly group; RD not applicable for this outcome as mean and standard deviation were not reported). Tests for heterogeneity were not applicable as only one study was included.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was insufficient evidence to identify the ideal frequency of ETT suctioning in ventilated neonates. Future research should focus on the effects in the very preterm newborns, that is, the most vulnerable population as concerns the risk of both lung and brain damage. Assessment should include the cases of prolonged ventilation, when more abundant, dense secretions are common. Clinical trials might include comparisons between 'as-scheduled' versus 'as-needed' endotracheal suctioning, that is, based on specific indications, as well frequent versus less frequent suctioning schedules.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "There were no important differences on the time the babies were on the ventilator, occurrence of pneumothorax (collapsed lung), need for ventilation or oxygen at more than 30 days, bleeding in the brain, and death in the first month of life. In addition, the study reported no side effects." } ]
query-laysum	7452	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThe choice of the appropriate perioperative thromboprophylaxis for people with cancer depends on the relative benefits and harms of different anticoagulants.\nObjectives\nTo systematically review the evidence for the relative efficacy and safety of anticoagulants for perioperative thromboprophylaxis in people with cancer.\nSearch methods\nThis update of the systematic review was based on the findings of a comprehensive literature search conducted on 14 June 2018 that included a major electronic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2018, Issue 6), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid); handsearching of conference proceedings; checking of references of included studies; searching for ongoing studies; and using the 'related citation' feature in PubMed.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with cancer undergoing a surgical intervention and assessed the effects of low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) to unfractionated heparin (UFH) or to fondaparinux on mortality, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), bleeding outcomes, and thrombocytopenia.\nData collection and analysis\nUsing a standardized form, we extracted data in duplicate on study design, participants, interventions outcomes of interest, and risk of bias. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, PE, symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE), asymptomatic DVT, major bleeding, minor bleeding, postphlebitic syndrome, health related quality of life, and thrombocytopenia. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach (GRADE Handbook).\nMain results\nOf 7670 identified unique citations, we included 20 RCTs with 9771 randomized people with cancer receiving preoperative prophylactic anticoagulation. We identified seven reports for seven new RCTs for this update.\nThe meta-analyses did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with UFH for the following outcomes: mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.07; risk difference (RD) 9 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 19 fewer to 4 more; moderate-certainty evidence), PE (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.47; RD 3 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 5 fewer to 3 more; moderate-certainty evidence), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.69; RD 3 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 7 fewer to 7 more; moderate-certainty evidence), asymptomatic DVT (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 23 fewer to 4 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 10 fewer to 15 more; moderate-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.33; RD 1 more per 1000, 95% CI 34 fewer to 47 more; moderate-certainty evidence), reoperation for bleeding (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.50; RD 4 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 22 fewer to 26 more; moderate-certainty evidence), intraoperative transfusion (mean difference (MD) -35.36 mL, 95% CI -253.19 to 182.47; low-certainty evidence), postoperative transfusion (MD 190.03 mL, 95% CI -23.65 to 403.72; low-certainty evidence), and thrombocytopenia (RR 3.07, 95% CI 0.32 to 29.33; RD 6 more per 1000, 95% CI 2 fewer to 82 more; moderate-certainty evidence). LMWH was associated with lower incidence of wound hematoma (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.92; RD 26 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 39 fewer to 7 fewer; moderate-certainty evidence). The meta-analyses found the following additional results: outcomes intraoperative blood loss (MD -6.75 mL, 95% CI -85.49 to 71.99; moderate-certainty evidence); and postoperative drain volume (MD 30.18 mL, 95% CI -36.26 to 96.62; moderate-certainty evidence).\nIn addition, the meta-analyses did not conclusively rule out either a beneficial or harmful effect of LMWH compared with Fondaparinux for the following outcomes: any VTE (DVT or PE, or both; RR 2.51, 95% CI 0.89 to 7.03; RD 57 more per 1000, 95% CI 4 fewer to 228 more; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.23; RD 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 16 fewer to 7 more; low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.05; RD 8fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 52 more; low-certainty evidence), thrombocytopenia (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.30; RD 14 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 20 fewer to 48 more; low-certainty evidence), any PE (RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.13 to 74.64; RD 2 more per 1000, 95% CI 1 fewer to 78 more; low-certainty evidence) and postoperative drain volume (MD -20.00 mL, 95% CI -114.34 to 74.34; low-certainty evidence)\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no difference between perioperative thromboprophylaxis with LMWH versus UFH and LMWH compared with fondaparinux in their effects on mortality, thromboembolic outcomes, major bleeding, or minor bleeding in people with cancer. There was a lower incidence of wound hematoma with LMWH compared to UFH.\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 cancer undergoing surgery are at an increased risk of blood clots. Blood thinners (anticoagulants) administered to prevent these clots include unfractionated heparin (UFH) infused intravenously (into a vein), low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) injected subcutaneously (under the skin) once or twice per day, and fondaparinux. These blood thinners may have different effectiveness and safety profiles." } ]
query-laysum	7453	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPain is a common symptom in people with cancer; 30% to 50% of people with cancer will experience moderate-to-severe pain. This can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) medications are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. Pain is not sufficiently relieved by opioid medications in 10% to 15% of people with cancer. In people with insufficient relief of cancer pain, new analgesics are needed to effectively and safely supplement or replace opioids.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines, including medical cannabis, for treating pain and other symptoms in adults with cancer compared to placebo or any other established analgesic for cancer pain.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 26 January 2023.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected double-blind randomised, controlled trials (RCT) of medical cannabis, plant-derived and synthetic cannabis-based medicines against placebo or any other active treatment for cancer pain in adults, with any treatment duration and at least 10 participants per treatment arm.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcomes were 1. proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain; 2. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved and 3. withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were 4. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater and overall opioid use reduced or stable; 5. number of participants who reported pain relief of 30% or greater, or 50% or greater; 6. pain intensity; 7. sleep problems; 8. depression and anxiety; 9. daily maintenance and breakthrough opioid dosage; 10. dropouts due to lack of efficacy; 11. all central nervous system adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified 14 studies involving 1823 participants. No study assessed the proportions of participants reporting no worse than mild pain on treatment by 14 days after start of treatment.\nWe found five RCTs assessing oromucosal nabiximols (tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD)) or THC alone involving 1539 participants with moderate or severe pain despite opioid therapy. The double-blind periods of the RCTs ranged between two and five weeks. Four studies with a parallel design and 1333 participants were available for meta-analysis.\nThere was moderate-certainty evidence that there was no clinically relevant benefit for proportions of PGIC much or very much improved (risk difference (RD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 8 to 100). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of withdrawals due to adverse events (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 25, 95% CI 16 to endless). There was moderate-certainty evidence for no difference between nabiximols or THC and placebo in the frequency of serious adverse events (RD 0.02, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.07). There was moderate-certainty evidence that nabiximols and THC used as add-on treatment for opioid-refractory cancer pain did not differ from placebo in reducing mean pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.19, 95% CI −0.40 to 0.02).\nThere was low-certainty evidence that a synthetic THC analogue (nabilone) delivered over eight weeks was not superior to placebo in reducing pain associated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer (2 studies, 89 participants, qualitative analysis). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies.\nThere was low-certainty evidence that synthetic THC analogues were superior to placebo (SMD −0.98, 95% CI −1.36 to −0.60), but not superior to low-dose codeine (SMD 0.03, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.32; 5 single-dose trials; 126 participants) in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain after cessation of previous analgesic treatment for three to four and a half hours (2 single-dose trials; 66 participants). Analyses of tolerability and safety were not possible for these studies.\nThere was low-certainty evidence that CBD oil did not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain intensity in people with advanced cancer. There was no difference in the number of dropouts due to adverse events and serious adverse events (1 study, 144 participants, qualitative analysis).\nWe found no studies using herbal cannabis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-certainty evidence that oromucosal nabiximols and THC are ineffective in relieving moderate-to-severe opioid-refractory cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that nabilone is ineffective in reducing pain associated with (radio-) chemotherapy in people with head and neck cancer and non-small cell lung cancer. There is low-certainty evidence that a single dose of synthetic THC analogues is not superior to a single low-dose morphine equivalent in reducing moderate-to-severe cancer pain. There is low-certainty evidence that CBD does not add value to specialist palliative care alone in the reduction of pain in people with advanced cancer.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence is up to date to January 2023." } ]
query-laysum	7454	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSince the previous Cochrane Review on this topic in 2016, debate has continued surrounding a potential role for vitamin D in reducing risk of asthma exacerbation and improving asthma control. We therefore conducted an updated meta-analysis to include data from new trials completed since this date.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of administration of vitamin D or its hydroxylated metabolites in reducing the risk of severe asthma exacerbations (defined as those requiring treatment with systemic corticosteroids) and improving asthma symptom control.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trial Register and reference lists of articles. We contacted the authors of studies in order to identify additional trials. Date of last search: 8 September 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials of vitamin D in children and adults with asthma evaluating exacerbation risk or asthma symptom control, or both.\nData collection and analysis\nFour review authors independently applied study inclusion criteria, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias. We obtained missing data from the authors where possible. We reported results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome was the incidence of severe asthma exacerbations requiring treatment with systemic corticosteroids. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of asthma exacerbations precipitating an emergency department visit or requiring hospital admission, or both, end-study childhood Asthma Control Test (cACT) or Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, and end-study % predicted forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1).\nWe performed subgroup analyses to determine whether the effect of vitamin D on risk of asthma exacerbation was modified by baseline vitamin D status, vitamin D dose, frequency of dosing regimen, form of vitamin D given, and age of participants.\nMain results\nWe included 20 studies in this review; 15 trials involving a total of 1155 children and five trials involving a total of 1070 adults contributed data to analyses. Participant ages ranged from 1 to 84 years, with two trials providing data specific to participants under five years (n = 69) and eight trials providing data specific to participants aged 5 to 16 (n = 766). Across the trials, 1245 participants were male and 1229 were female, with two studies not reporting sex distribution. Fifteen trials contributed to the primary outcome analysis of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids. The duration of trials ranged from three to 40 months; all but two investigated effects of administering cholecalciferol (vitamin D3). As in the previous Cochrane Review, the majority of participants had mild to moderate asthma, and profound vitamin D deficiency (25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) < 25 nmol/L) at baseline was rare.\nAdministration of vitamin D or its hydroxylated metabolites did not reduce or increase the proportion of participants experiencing one or more asthma exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids (odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 1778 participants; high-quality evidence). This equates to an absolute risk of 226 per 1000 (95% CI 185 to 273) in the pooled vitamin D group, compared to a baseline risk of 219 participants per 1000 in the pooled placebo group.\nWe also found no effect of vitamin D supplementation on the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids (rate ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19; I2 = 60%; 10 studies, 1599 participants; high-quality evidence), or the time to first exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.15; I2 = 22%; 3 studies, 850 participants; high-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis did not reveal any evidence of effect modification by baseline vitamin D status, vitamin D dose, frequency of dosing regimen, or age. A single trial investigating administration of calcidiol reported a benefit of the intervention for the primary outcome of asthma control.\nVitamin D supplementation did not influence any secondary efficacy outcome meta-analysed, which were all based on moderate- or high-quality evidence. We observed no effect on the incidence of serious adverse events (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 12 studies, 1556 participants; high-quality evidence). The effect of vitamin D on fatal asthma exacerbations was not estimable, as no such events occurred in any trial. Six studies reported adverse reactions potentially attributable to vitamin D. These occurred across treatment and control arms and included hypercalciuria, hypervitaminosis D, kidney stones, gastrointestinal symptoms and mild itch. In one trial, we could not ascertain the total number of participants with hypercalciuria from the trial report.\nWe assessed three trials as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain; none of these contributed data to the analysis of the outcomes reported above. Sensitivity analyses that excluded these trials from each outcome to which they contributed did not change the null findings.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn contrast to findings of our previous Cochrane Review on this topic, this updated review does not find evidence to support a role for vitamin D supplementation or its hydroxylated metabolites to reduce risk of asthma exacerbations or improve asthma control. Participants with severe asthma and those with baseline 25(OH)D concentrations < 25 nmol/L were poorly represented, so further research is warranted here. A single study investigating effects of calcidiol yielded positive results, so further studies investigating effects of this metabolite are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "1) In contrast to our previous Cochrane Review on this topic, this updated review does not find that vitamin D offers protection against severe asthma attacks or improves control of symptoms.\n2) Further trials are required in people with frequent severe asthma attacks and those with very low baseline vitamin D status, and into the potential for calcidiol (a particular form of vitamin D) to offer protective effects." } ]
query-laysum	7455	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nFractures of the proximal humerus, often termed shoulder fractures, are common injuries, especially in older people. The management of these fractures varies widely, including in the use of surgery. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of treatment and rehabilitation interventions for proximal humeral fractures in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries, and bibliographies of trial reports and systematic reviews to September 2020. We updated this search in November 2021, but have not yet incorporated these results.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared non-pharmacological interventions for treating acute proximal humeral fractures in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nPairs of review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We pooled data where appropriate and used GRADE for assessing the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We prepared a brief economic commentary for one comparison.\nMain results\nWe included 47 trials (3179 participants, mostly women and mainly aged 60 years or over) that tested one of 26 comparisons. Six comparisons were tested by 2 to 10 trials, the others by small single-centre trials only. Twelve studies evaluated non-surgical treatments, 10 compared surgical with non-surgical treatments, 23 compared two methods of surgery, and two tested timing of mobilisation after surgery. Most trials were at high risk of bias, due mainly to lack of blinding. We summarise the findings for four key comparisons below.\nEarly (usually one week post injury) versus delayed (after three or more weeks) mobilisation for non-surgically-treated fractures\nFive trials (350 participants) made this comparison; however, the available data are very limited. Due to very low-certainty evidence from single trials, we are uncertain of the findings of better shoulder function at one year in the early mobilisation group, or the findings of little or no between-group difference in function at 3 or 24 months. Likewise, there is very low-certainty evidence of no important between-group difference in quality of life at one year. There was one reported death and five serious shoulder complications (1.9% of 259 participants), spread between the two groups, that would have required substantive treatment.\nSurgical versus non-surgical treatment\nTen trials (717 participants) evaluated surgical intervention for displaced fractures (66% were three- or four-part fractures). There is high-certainty evidence of no clinically important difference between surgical and non-surgical treatment in patient-reported shoulder function at one year (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.27; 7 studies, 552 participants) and two years (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.25; 5 studies, 423 participants). There is moderate-certainty evidence of no clinically important between-group difference in patient-reported shoulder function at six months (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.38; 3 studies, 347 participants). There is high-certainty evidence of no clinically important between-group difference in quality of life at one year (EQ-5D (0: dead to 1: best quality): mean difference (MD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04; 6 studies, 502 participants). There is low-certainty evidence of little between-group difference in mortality: one of the 31 deaths was explicitly linked with surgery (risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.62; 8 studies, 646 participants). There is low-certainty evidence of a higher risk of additional surgery in the surgery group (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.51; 9 studies, 667 participants). Based on an illustrative risk of 35 subsequent operations per 1000 non-surgically-treated patients, this indicates an extra 38 subsequent operations per 1000 surgically-treated patients (95% CI 8 to 94 more). Although there was low-certainty evidence of a higher overall risk of adverse events after surgery, the 95% CI also includes a slightly increased risk of adverse events after non-surgical treatment (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.31; 3 studies, 391 participants).\nOpen reduction and internal fixation with a locking plate versus a locking intramedullary nail\nFour trials (270 participants) evaluated surgical intervention for displaced fractures (63% were two-part fractures). There is low-certainty evidence of no clinically important between-group difference in shoulder function at one year (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.41; 4 studies, 227 participants), six months (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire (0 to 100: worst disability): MD -0.39, 95% CI -4.14 to 3.36; 3 studies, 174 participants), or two years (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) (0 to 100: best outcome): MD 3.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 6.17; 2 studies, 101 participants). There is very low-certainty evidence of no between-group difference in quality of life (1 study), and of little difference in adverse events (4 studies, 250 participants) and additional surgery (3 studies, 193 participants).\nReverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) versus hemiarthroplasty\nThere is very low-certainty evidence from two trials (161 participants with either three- or four-part fractures) of no or minimal between-group differences in self-reported shoulder function at one year (1 study) or at two to three years' follow-up (2 studies); or in quality of life at one year or at two or more years' follow-up (1 study). Function at six months was not reported. Of 10 deaths reported by one trial (99 participants), one appeared to be surgery-related. There is very low-certainty evidence of a lower risk of complications after RTSA (2 studies). Ten people (6.2% of 161 participants) had a reoperation; all eight cases in the hemiarthroplasty group received a RTSA (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is high- or moderate-certainty evidence that, compared with non-surgical treatment, surgery does not result in a better outcome at one and two years after injury for people with displaced proximal humeral fractures. It may increase the need for subsequent surgery. The evidence is absent or insufficient for people aged under 60 years, high-energy trauma, two-part tuberosity fractures or less common fractures, such as fracture dislocations and articular surface fractures.\nThere is insufficient evidence from randomised trials to inform the choices between different non-surgical, surgical or rehabilitation interventions for these fractures.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "- There is not enough evidence to tell whether early movement of the arm after one week in a sling makes a difference to long-term shoulder function or the development of shoulder problems compared with supporting the arm in a sling for three or more weeks.\n- Patients report that surgery does not result in better shoulder function for most types of displaced fractures (where the broken parts have moved apart) than non-surgical treatment. However, it may result in a higher risk of follow-up surgery for complications.\n- If surgery is undertaken, there is not enough evidence to say what is the best method." } ]
query-laysum	7456	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDespite substantial improvements in the success of assisted reproduction techniques (ART), live birth rates may remain consistently low, and practitioners may look for innovative treatments to improve the outcomes. The injection of embryo culture supernatant in the endometrial cavity can be undertaken at various time intervals before embryo transfer. It provides an altered endometrial environment through the secretion of factors considered to facilitate implantation. It is proposed that injection of the supernatant into the endometrial cavity prior to embryo transfer will stimulate the endometrium and provide better conditions for implantation to take place. An increased implantation rate would subsequently increase rates of clinical pregnancy and live birth, but current robust evidence on the efficacy of injected embryo culture supernatant is lacking.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer in women undergoing ART.\nSearch methods\nOur search strategies were designed with the help of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Information Specialist. We sought to identify all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) meeting inclusion criteria. Searches were performed on 2 December 2019.\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, trials registries and grey literature. We made further searches in the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) fertility assessment and treatment guidelines. We handsearched reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and RCTs, together with searches of PubMed and Google for any recent trials that have not yet been indexed in the major databases. We had no language or location restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs testing the use of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer during an ART cycle, compared with the non-use of this intervention, the use of placebo or the use of any other similar drug.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data from studies and attempted to contact the authors where data were missing. We pooled studies using a fixed-effect model. Our primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and miscarriage. We performed statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We assessed evidence quality using GRADE methods.\nMain results\nWe found five RCTs suitable for inclusion in the review (526 women analysed). We made two comparisons: embryo culture supernatant use versus standard care or no intervention; and embryo culture supernatant use versus culture medium.\nAll studies were published as full-text articles. Data derived from the reports or through direct communication with investigators were available for the final meta-analysis performed. The GRADE evidence quality of studies ranged from very low-quality to moderate-quality. Factors reducing evidence quality included high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, unclear risk of publication bias and selective outcome reporting, serious inconsistency among study outcomes, and serious imprecision due to wide confidence intervals (CIs) and low numbers of events.\nComparison 1. Endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer versus standard care or no intervention:\nOne study reported live birth only and two reported the composite outcome live birth and ongoing pregnancy. We are uncertain whether endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer during an ART cycle improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates compared to no intervention (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.70; 3 RCTs; n = 340, I2 = 84%; very low-quality evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 42%, the chance following the endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer would vary between 22% and 81%.\nWe are also uncertain whether the endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant could decrease miscarriage rates, compared to no intervention (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.78, 4 RCTs, n = 430, I2 = 58%, very low-quality evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of miscarriage following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 9%, the chance following injection of embryo culture supernatant would vary between 3% and 30%.\nConcerning the secondary outcomes, we are uncertain whether the injection of embryo culture supernatant prior to embryo transfer could increase clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.61; 5 RCTs; n = 526, I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence), decrease ectopic pregnancy rates (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.24; n = 250; 2 RCTs; I2 = 41%; very low-quality evidence), decrease multiple pregnancy rates (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.83; 2 RCTs; n = 150; I2 = 63%; very low-quality evidence), or decrease preterm delivery rates (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.42; 1 RCT; n = 90; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence), compared to no intervention. Finally, there may have been little or no difference in foetal abnormality rates between the two groups (OR 3.10, 95% CI 0.12 to 79.23; 1 RCT; n = 60; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence).\nComparison 2. Endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant versus endometrial injection of culture medium before embryo transfer\nWe are uncertain whether the use of embryo culture supernatant improves clinical pregnancy rates, compared to the use of culture medium (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.46; n = 96; 1 RCT; very low-quality evidence). No study reported live birth/ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic or multiple pregnancy, preterm delivery or foetal abnormalities.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are uncertain whether the addition of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer as a routine method for the treatment of women undergoing ART can improve pregnancy outcomes. This conclusion is based on current available data from five RCTs, with evidence quality ranging from very low to moderate across studies. Further large well-designed RCTs reporting on live births and adverse clinical outcomes are still required to clarify the exact role of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer.\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 consultation with the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Information Specialist, we performed a comprehensive literature search of the standard medical databases, from each databases' earliest records to December 2019. We searched for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (studies in which participants are assigned to a treatment group using a random method) that investigated the effectiveness of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer, during a cycle with IVF or ICSI, versus any other intervention or no intervention (usual care). IVF and ICSI are the two major modalities of ART. We searched for studies irrespective of language and country of origin. Two review authors independently selected and evaluated studies, extracted data, and attempted to contact the authors of studies for which data were missing. Five studies comprising 526 women met our review's inclusion criteria. We identified no ongoing studies." } ]
query-laysum	7457	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR).\nMethods\nWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation.\nMain results\nThis update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.\nBased on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.\nBased on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).\nBased on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.\nMain results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Function improvement by Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, lower score or more reduction = better function)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "People who took biologics + MTX/DMARDs rated their improvement in function to be 0.25 points more on a scale of 0 to 3 (-8% absolute improvement).\nPeople who took biologics + MTX/DMARDs rated their function improved by 0.39 points on a scale of 0 to 3.\nPeople who took a MTX/DMARD/placebo rated their function improved by 0.14 points on a scale of 0 to 3." } ]
query-laysum	7458	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nDelirium is a common mental disorder, which is distressing and has serious adverse outcomes in hospitalised patients. Prevention of delirium is desirable from the perspective of patients and carers, and healthcare providers. It is currently unclear, however, whether interventions for preventing delirium are effective.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS - the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group’s Specialized Register on 4 December 2015 for all randomised studies on preventing delirium. We also searched MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Central (The Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), LILACS (BIREME), Web of Science core collection (ISI Web of Science), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO meta register of trials, ICTRP.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multi- component non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors examined titles and abstracts of citations identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data independently, with any disagreements settled by consensus. The primary outcome was incidence of delirium; secondary outcomes included duration and severity of delirium, institutional care at discharge, quality of life and healthcare costs. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes; and between group mean differences and standard deviations for continuous outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 39 trials that recruited 16,082 participants, assessing 22 different interventions or comparisons. Fourteen trials were placebo-controlled, 15 evaluated a delirium prevention intervention against usual care, and 10 compared two different interventions. Thirty-two studies were conducted in patients undergoing surgery, the majority in orthopaedic settings. Seven studies were conducted in general medical or geriatric medicine settings.\nWe found multi-component interventions reduced the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81; seven studies; 1950 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Effect sizes were similar in medical (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92; four studies; 1365 participants) and surgical settings (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.85; three studies; 585 participants). In the subgroup of patients with pre-existing dementia, the effect of multi-component interventions remains uncertain (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; one study, 50 participants; low-quality evidence).\nThere is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors are effective in preventing delirium compared to placebo (RR 0.68, 95% CI, 0.17 to 2.62; two studies, 113 participants; very low-quality evidence).\nThree trials provide no clear evidence of an effect of antipsychotic medications as a group on the incidence of delirium (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.59; 916 participants; very low-quality evidence). In a pre-planned subgroup analysis there was no evidence for effectiveness of a typical antipsychotic (haloperidol) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.60; two studies; 516 participants, low-quality evidence). However, delirium incidence was lower (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52; one study; 400 participants, moderate-quality evidence) for patients treated with an atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine) compared to placebo (moderate-quality evidence).\nThere is no clear evidence that melatonin or melatonin agonists reduce delirium incidence compared to placebo (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.89; three studies, 529 participants; low-quality evidence).\nThere is moderate-quality evidence that Bispectral Index (BIS)-guided anaesthesia reduces the incidence of delirium compared to BIS-blinded anaesthesia or clinical judgement (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.85; two studies; 2057 participants).\nIt is not possible to generate robust evidence statements for a range of additional pharmacological and anaesthetic interventions due to small numbers of trials, of variable methodological quality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is strong evidence supporting multi-component interventions to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients. There is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors, antipsychotic medication or melatonin reduce the incidence of delirium. Using the Bispectral Index to monitor and control depth of anaesthesia reduces the incidence of postoperative delirium. The role of drugs and other anaesthetic techniques to prevent delirium remains uncertain.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We reviewed the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised patients, not including those on intensive care units (ICU) (specialised wards for the care of critically ill patients)." } ]
query-laysum	7459	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nLeg ulcers are open skin wounds that occur between the ankle and the knee that can last weeks, months or even years and are a consequence of arterial or venous valvular insufficiency. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a technology that is currently used widely in wound care and is promoted for use on wounds. NPWT involves the application of a wound dressing to the wound, to which a machine is attached. The machine applies a carefully controlled negative pressure (or vacuum), which sucks any wound and tissue fluid away from the treated area into a canister.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for treating leg ulcers in any care setting.\nSearch methods\nFor this review, in May 2015 we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 21 May 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 20 May 2015); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 20 May 2015); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 20 May 2015); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 21 May 2015). There were no restrictions based on language or date of publication.\nSelection criteria\nPublished or unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of NPWT with alternative treatments or different types of NPWT in the treatment of leg ulcers.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.\nMain results\nWe included one study, with 60 randomized participants, in the review. The study population had a range of ulcer types that were venous arteriolosclerotic and venous/arterial in origin. Study participants had recalcitrant ulcers that had not healed after treatment over a six-month period. Participants allocated to NPWT received continuous negative pressure until they achieved 100% granulation (wound preparation stage). A punch skin-graft transplantation was conducted and the wound then exposed to further NPWT for four days followed by standard care. Participants allocated to the control arm received standard care with dressings and compression until 100% granulation was achieved. These participants also received a punch skin-graft transplant and then further treatment with standard care. All participants were treated as in-patients until healing occurred.\nThere was low quality evidence of a difference in time to healing that favoured the NPWT group: the study reported an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.2, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.7 to 6.2. The follow-up period of the study was a minimum of 12 months. There was no evidence of a difference in the total number of ulcers healed (29/30 in each group) over the follow-up period; this finding was also low quality evidence.\nThere was low quality evidence of a difference in time to wound preparation for surgery that favoured NPWT (hazard ratio 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.7).\nLimited data on adverse events were collected: these provided low quality evidence of no difference in pain scores and Euroqol (EQ-5D) scores at eight weeks after surgery.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is limited rigorous RCT evidence available concerning the clinical effectiveness of NPWT in the treatment of leg ulcers. There is some evidence that the treatment may reduce time to healing as part of a treatment that includes a punch skin graft transplant, however, the applicability of this finding may be limited by the very specific context in which NPWT was evaluated. There is no RCT evidence on the effectiveness of NPWT as a primary treatment for leg ulcers.\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": "Leg ulcers are wounds that occur between the ankle and the knee as a result of poor blood flow in the legs. These wounds are relatively common often affecting older people. There are several different treatments for these ulcers and the underlying problems that cause them. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a treatment currently beng used for wounds including leg ulcers. NPWT involves the application to the wound of a dressing to which a machine is attached. The machine then applies a carefully controlled negative pressure (or vacuum), and sucks any wound and tissue fluid away from the treated area into a canister." } ]
query-laysum	7460	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGrade I or low-grade chondrosarcoma (LGCS) is a primary bone tumour with low malignant potential. Historically, it was treated by wide resection, since accurate pre-operative exclusion of more aggressive cancers can be challenging and under-treatment of a more aggressive cancer could negatively influence oncological outcomes. Intralesional surgery for LGCS has been advocated more often in the literature over the past few years. The potential advantages of less aggressive treatment are better functional outcome and lower complication rates although these need to be weighed against the potential for compromising survival outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of intralesional treatment by curettage compared to wide resection for central low-grade chondrosarcoma (LGCS) of the long bones.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE and Embase up to April 2018. We extended the search to include trials registries, reference lists of relevant articles and review articles. We also searched 'related articles' of included studies suggested by PubMed.\nSelection criteria\nIn the absence of prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we included retrospective comparative studies and case series that evaluated outcome of treatment of central LGCS of the long bones. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival after a minimal follow-up of 24 months. Secondary outcomes were upgrading of tumour; functional outcome, as assessed by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score; and occurrence of complications.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recognised by Cochrane. We conducted a systematic literature search using several databases and contacted corresponding authors, appraised the evidence using the ROBINS-I risk of bias tool and GRADE, and performed a meta-analysis. If data extraction was not possible, we included studies in a narrative summary.\nMain results\nWe included 18 studies, although we were only able to extract participant data from 14 studies that included a total of 511 participants; 419 participants were managed by intralesional treatment and 92 underwent a wide resection. We were not able to extract participant data from four studies, including 270 participants, and so we included them as a narrative summary only. The evidence was at high risk of performance, detection and reporting bias.\nMeta-analysis of data from 238 participants across seven studies demonstrated little or no difference in recurrence-free survival after intralesional treatment versus wide resection for central LGCS in the long bones (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.04; very low-certainty evidence). MSTS scores were probably better after intralesional surgery (mean score 93%) versus resection (mean score 78%) with a mean difference of 12.69 (95% CI 2.82 to 22.55; P value < 0.001; 3 studies; 72 participants; low-certainty evidence). Major complications across six studies (203 participants) were lower in cases treated by intralesional treatment (5/125 cases) compared to those treated by wide resection (18/78 cases), with RR 0.23 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence). In four people (0.5% of total participants) a high-grade (grade 2 or dedifferentiated) tumour was found after a local recurrence. Two participants were treated with second surgery with no evidence of disease at their final follow-up and two participants (0.26% of total participants) died due to disease. Kaplan-Meier analysis of data from 115 individual participants across four studies demonstrated 96% recurrence-free survival after a maximum follow-up of 300 months after resection versus 94% recurrence-free survival after a maximum follow-up of 251 months after intralesional treatment (P value = 0.58; very low-certainty evidence). Local recurrence or metastases were not reported after 41 months in either treatment group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOnly evidence of low- and very low-certainty was available for this review according to the GRADE system. Included studies were all retrospective in nature and at high risk of selection and attrition bias. Therefore, we could not determine whether wide resection is superior to intralesional treatment in terms of event-free survival and recurrence rates. However, functional outcome and complication rates are probably better after intralesional surgery compared to wide resection, although this is low-certainty evidence, considering the large effect size. Nevertheless, recurrence-free survival was excellent in both groups and a prospective RCT comparing intralesional treatment versus wide resection may be challenging for both practical and ethical reasons. Future research could instead focus on less invasive treatment strategies for these tumours by identifying predictors that help to stratify participants for surgical intervention or close observation.\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 there was little or no difference in rates of local recurrence between treatment types. In 94% to 96% of the cases, the tumour was successfully removed after a single operation. In the few cases where disease recurred, a second operation was needed. People with LGCS probably have better functionality after less aggressive intralesional treatment, and complication rates were probably lower compare to wide surgical resection. Less than 0.3% of all people with LGCS died due to their disease, irrespective of the surgical technique." } ]
query-laysum	7461	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCystoscopy is commonly performed for diagnostic purposes to inspect the interior lining of the bladder. One disadvantage of cystoscopy is the risk of symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) due to pre-existing colonization or by introduction of bacteria at the time of the procedure. However, the incidence of symptomatic UTI following cystoscopy is low. Currently, there is no consensus on whether antimicrobial agents should be used to prevent symptomatic UTI for cystoscopy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of antimicrobial agents compared with placebo or no treatment for prevention of UTI in adults undergoing cystoscopy.\nSearch methods\nWe comprehensively searched electronic databases of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and CINAHL. We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. We used no language or date restrictions in the electronic searches. We searched the reference lists of identified articles and contacted authors for related information. The last search of the electronic databases was 4 February 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared any prophylactic antibiotic versus placebo, no treatment, or other non-antibiotic prophylaxis in adults undergoing cystoscopy. There was no restriction on the dose, frequency, formulation, duration, or mode of administration of the antibiotics.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were systemic UTI, symptomatic UTI (composite of systemic and/or localized UTI), and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were minor adverse events, localized UTI, asymptomatic bacteriuria, and bacterial resistance. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 20 RCTs and two quasi-RCTs with 7711 participants, all of which compared antibiotic prophylaxis with placebo or no treatment control. We found no studies comparing antibiotic prophylaxis with non-antibiotic prophylaxis.\nPrimary outcomes\nSystemic UTI: antibiotic prophylaxis may have little or no effect on the risk of systemic UTI compared with placebo or no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 3.32; 5 RCTs; 504 participants; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to two more people (95% CI 12 fewer to 46 more) per 1000 people developing a systemic UTI. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations and imprecision.\nSymptomatic UTI: antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce the risk of symptomatic UTI (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.86; 11 RCTs; 5441 participants; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to 30 fewer people (95% CI 42 fewer to 8 fewer) per 1000 people developing a symptomatic UTI when provided with antibiotic prophylaxis. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations and potential publication bias.\nSerious adverse events: the studies reported no serious adverse events in either the intervention group or control group and no effect size could be calculated. Antibiotic prophylaxis may have little or no effect on serious adverse events (4 RCTs, 630 participants; very low-quality evidence), but we are very uncertain of this finding. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations and very serious imprecision.\nSecondary outcomes\nMinor adverse events: prophylactic antibiotics may have little or no effect on minor adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.82, 95% CI 0.54 to 14.80; 4 RCTs; 630 participants; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations and imprecision.\nLocalized UTI: prophylactic antibiotics may have little or no effect on the risk of localized UTI (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.77; 1 RCT; 200 participants; very low-quality evidence), but we were very uncertain of this finding. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations and very serious imprecision.\nBacterial resistance: prophylactic antibiotics may increase bacterial resistance (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.87; 38 participants; 2 RCTs; very low-quality evidence), but we were uncertain of this finding. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for study limitations, indirectness, and imprecision.\nWe were able to perform few secondary analyses; these did not suggest any subgroup effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAntibiotic prophylaxis may reduce the risk of symptomatic UTI but not systemic UTIs. Serious and minor adverse events may not be increased with the use of antibiotic prophylaxis. The findings are informed by low- and very low-quality evidence ratings for all outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Cystoscopy may cause UTIs. This may cause bothersome symptoms like burning with urination due to an infection limited to the bladder or fevers and chills due to a more serious infection that has goes to the bloodstream, or a combination of burning, fevers, and chills. Antibiotics may prevent infections and reduce these symptoms but can also cause unwanted effects. It is uncertain whether people should be given antibiotics before this procedure." } ]
query-laysum	7462	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nThis review focuses on non-dispensing services from pharmacists, i.e. pharmacists in community, primary or ambulatory-care settings, to non-hospitalised patients, and is an update of a previously-published Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effect of pharmacists' non-dispensing services on non-hospitalised patient outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trial registers in March 2015, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We included non-English language publications. We ran top-up searches in January 2018 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Studies awaiting classification'.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials of pharmacist services compared with the delivery of usual care or equivalent/similar services with the same objective delivered by other health professionals.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Two review authors independently checked studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 116 trials comprising 111 trials (39,729 participants) comparing pharmacist interventions with usual care and five trials (2122 participants) comparing pharmacist services with services from other healthcare professionals. Of the 116 trials, 76 were included in meta-analyses. The 40 remaining trials were not included in the meta-analyses because they each reported unique outcome measures which could not be combined. Most trials targeted chronic conditions and were conducted in a range of settings, mostly community pharmacies and hospital outpatient clinics, and were mainly but not exclusively conducted in high-income countries. Most trials had a low risk of reporting bias and about 25%-30% were at high risk of bias for performance, detection, and attrition. Selection bias was unclear for about half of the included studies.\nCompared with usual care, we are uncertain whether pharmacist services reduce the percentage of patients outside the glycated haemoglobin target range (5 trials, N = 558, odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.22; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may reduce the percentage of patients whose blood pressure is outside the target range (18 trials, N = 4107, OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence) and probably lead to little or no difference in hospital attendance or admissions (14 trials, N = 3631, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.11; moderate-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to adverse drug effects (3 trials, N = 590, OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.24) and may slightly improve physical functioning (7 trials, N = 1329, mean difference (MD) 5.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 10.48; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to mortality (9 trials, N = 1980, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.12, low-certaintly evidence).\nOf the five studies that compared services delivered by pharmacists with other health professionals, no studies evaluated the impact of the intervention on the percentage of patients outside blood pressure or glycated haemoglobin target range, hospital attendance and admission, adverse drug effects, or physical functioning.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results demonstrate that pharmacist services have varying effects on patient outcomes compared with usual care. We found no studies comparing services delivered by pharmacists with other healthcare professionals that evaluated the impact of the intervention on the six main outcome measures. The results need to be interpreted cautiously because there was major heterogeneity in study populations, types of interventions delivered and reported outcomes.There was considerable heterogeneity within many of the meta-analyses, as well as considerable variation in the risks of bias.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched for studies that had been published up to March 2015. We ran top-up searches in January 2018 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Studies awaiting classification'." } ]
query-laysum	7463	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is carbohydrate intolerance resulting in hyperglycaemia with onset or first recognition during pregnancy. If untreated, perinatal morbidity and mortality may be increased. Accurate diagnosis allows appropriate treatment. Use of different tests and different criteria will influence which women are diagnosed with GDM. This is an update of a review published in 2011 and 2015.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate and compare different testing strategies for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus to improve maternal and infant health while assessing their impact on healthcare service costs.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 January 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials if they evaluated tests carried out to diagnose GDM. We excluded studies that used a quasi-random model, cluster-randomised or cross-over trials.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included a total of seven small trials, with 1420 women. One trial including 726 women was identified by this update and examined the two step versus one step approach. These trials were assessed as having varying risk of bias, with few outcomes reported. We prespecified six outcomes to be assessed for quality using the GRADE approach for one comparison: 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) versus 100 g OGTT; data for only one outcome (diagnosis of gestational diabetes) were available for assessment. One trial compared three different methods of delivering glucose: a candy bar (39 women), a 50 g glucose polymer drink (40 women) and a 50 g glucose monomer drink (43 women). We have included the results reported by this trial as separate comparisons. No trial reported on measures of costs of health services.\nWe examined six main comparisons.\n75 g OGTT versus 100 g OGTT (1 trial, 248 women): women who received 75 g OGTT had a higher relative risk of being diagnosed with GDM (risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 6.75; very-low quality evidence). No data were reported for the following additional outcomes prespecified for GRADE assessment: caesarean section, macrosomia > 4.5 kg or however defined in the trial, long-term type 2 diabetes maternal, long-term type 2 diabetes infant and economic costs.\nCandy bar versus 50 g glucose monomer drink (1 trial, 60 women): more women receiving the candy bar, rather than glucose monomer, preferred the taste of the candy bar (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.86) and 1-hour glucose was less with the candy bar. There were no differences in the other outcomes reported (maternal side effects). No infant outcomes were reported or any review primary outcomes.\n50 g glucose polymer drink versus 50 g glucose monomer drink (3 trials, 239 women): mean difference (MD) in gestation at birth was -0.80 weeks (1 trial, 100 women; 95% CI -1.69 to 0.09). Total side effects were less common with the glucose polymer drink (1 trial, 63 women; RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.59), and no clear difference in taste acceptability was reported (1 trial, 63 women; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.29). Fewer women reported nausea following the 50 g glucose polymer drink compared with the 50 g glucose monomer drink (1 trial, 66 women; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.78). No other measures of maternal morbidity or outcomes for the infant were reported.\n50 g glucose food versus 50 g glucose drink (1 trial, 30 women): women receiving glucose in their food, rather than as a drink, reported fewer side effects (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.56). No clear difference was noted in the number of women requiring further testing (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.55). No other measures of maternal morbidity or outcome were reported for the infant or review primary outcomes.\n75 g OGTT World Health Organization (WHO) criteria versus 75 g OGTT American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria (1 trial, 116 women): no clear differences in included outcomes were observed between women who received the 75 g OGTT and were diagnosed using criteria based on WHO (1999) recommendations and women who received the 75 g OGTT and were diagnosed using criteria recommended by the ADA (1979). Outcomes measured included diagnosis of gestational diabetes (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.25), caesarean section (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.35), macrosomia defined as > 90th percentile by ultrasound or birthweight equal to or exceeding 4000 g (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.79), stillbirth (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.02 to 11.68) and instrumental birth (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.94). No other secondary outcomes were reported.\nTwo-step approach (50 g oral glucose challenge test followed by selective 100 g OGTT Carpenter and Coustan criteria) versus one-step approach (universal 75 g OGTT ADA criteria) (1 trial, 726 women): women allocated the two-step approach had a lower risk of being diagnosed with GDM at 11 to 14 weeks' gestation compared to women allocated the one-step approach (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.95). No other primary or secondary outcomes were reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to suggest which strategy is best for diagnosing GDM. Large randomised trials are required to establish the best strategy for correctly identifying women with GDM.\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": "We aimed to evaluate and compare different ways of diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). We searched for all relevant studies in January 2017." } ]
query-laysum	7464	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nCritically ill people may lose fluid because of serious conditions, infections (e.g. sepsis), trauma, or burns, and need additional fluids urgently to prevent dehydration or kidney failure. Colloid or crystalloid solutions may be used for this purpose. Crystalloids have small molecules, are cheap, easy to use, and provide immediate fluid resuscitation, but may increase oedema. Colloids have larger molecules, cost more, and may provide swifter volume expansion in the intravascular space, but may induce allergic reactions, blood clotting disorders, and kidney failure. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of using colloids versus crystalloids in critically ill people requiring fluid volume replacement on mortality, need for blood transfusion or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and adverse events (specifically: allergic reactions, itching, rashes).\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two other databases on 23 February 2018. We also searched clinical trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of critically ill people who required fluid volume replacement in hospital or emergency out-of-hospital settings. Participants had trauma, burns, or medical conditions such as sepsis. We excluded neonates, elective surgery and caesarean section. We compared a colloid (suspended in any crystalloid solution) versus a crystalloid (isotonic or hypertonic).\nData collection and analysis\nIndependently, two review authors assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and synthesised findings. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 69 studies (65 RCTs, 4 quasi-RCTs) with 30,020 participants. Twenty-eight studied starch solutions, 20 dextrans, seven gelatins, and 22 albumin or fresh frozen plasma (FFP); each type of colloid was compared to crystalloids.\nParticipants had a range of conditions typical of critical illness. Ten studies were in out-of-hospital settings. We noted risk of selection bias in some studies, and, as most studies were not prospectively registered, risk of selective outcome reporting. Fourteen studies included participants in the crystalloid group who received or may have received colloids, which might have influenced results.\nWe compared four types of colloid (i.e. starches; dextrans; gelatins; and albumin or FFP) versus crystalloids.\nStarches versus crystalloids\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using starches or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.09; 11,177 participants; 24 studies); within 90 days (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 10,415 participants; 15 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 10,135 participants; 11 studies).\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence that starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.39; 1917 participants; 8 studies), and RRT (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.48; 8527 participants; 9 studies). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether either fluid affected adverse events: we found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 2.59, 95% CI 0.27 to 24.91; 7757 participants; 3 studies), fewer incidences of itching with crystalloids (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.82; 6946 participants; 2 studies), and fewer incidences of rashes with crystalloids (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.89; 7007 participants; 2 studies).\nDextrans versus crystalloids\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using dextrans or crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11; 4736 participants; 19 studies); or within 90 days or 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; 3353 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether dextrans or crystalloids reduce the need for blood transfusion, as we found little or no difference in blood transfusions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 1272 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). We found little or no difference in allergic reactions (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 144.93; 739 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies measured RRT.\nGelatins versus crystalloids\nWe found low-certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between gelatins or crystalloids in mortality: at end of follow-up (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.08; 1698 participants; 6 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; 1388 participants; 1 study); or within 30 days (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16; 1388 participants; 1 study). Evidence for blood transfusion was very low certainty (3 studies), with a low event rate or data not reported by intervention. Data for RRT were not reported separately for gelatins (1 study). We found little or no difference between groups in allergic reactions (very low-certainty evidence).\nAlbumin or FFP versus crystalloids\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference between using albumin or FFP or using crystalloids in mortality at: end of follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 13,047 participants; 20 studies); within 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.04; 12,492 participants; 10 studies); or within 30 days (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 12,506 participants; 10 studies). We are uncertain whether either fluid type reduces need for blood transfusion (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80; 290 participants; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Using albumin or FFP versus crystalloids may make little or no difference to the need for RRT (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.27; 3028 participants; 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence), or in allergic reactions (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.33; 2097 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nUsing starches, dextrans, albumin or FFP (moderate-certainty evidence), or gelatins (low-certainty evidence), versus crystalloids probably makes little or no difference to mortality. Starches probably slightly increase the need for blood transfusion and RRT (moderate-certainty evidence), and albumin or FFP may make little or no difference to the need for renal replacement therapy (low-certainty evidence). Evidence for blood transfusions for dextrans, and albumin or FFP, is uncertain. Similarly, evidence for adverse events is uncertain. Certainty of evidence may improve with inclusion of three ongoing studies and seven studies awaiting classification, in future updates.\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": "Critically ill people may lose large amounts of blood (because of trauma or burns), or have serious conditions or infections (e.g. sepsis); they require additional fluids urgently to prevent dehydration or kidney failure. Colloids and crystalloids are types of fluids that are used for fluid replacement, often intravenously (via a tube straight into the blood).\nCrystalloids are low-cost salt solutions (e.g. saline) with small molecules, which can move around easily when injected into the body.\nColloids can be man-made (e.g. starches, dextrans, or gelatins), or naturally occurring (e.g. albumin or fresh frozen plasma (FFP)), and have bigger molecules, so stay in the blood for longer before passing to other parts of the body. Colloids are more expensive than crystalloids. We are uncertain whether they are better than crystalloids at reducing death, need for blood transfusion or need for renal replacement therapy (filtering the blood, with or without dialysis machines, if kidneys fail) when given to critically ill people who need fluid replacement." } ]
query-laysum	7465	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nEndometriosis is a common gynaecological condition that affects women and can lead to painful symptoms and infertility. It greatly affects women's quality of life, impacting their careers, everyday activities, sexual and nonsexual relationships and fertility. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are most commonly used as first-line treatment for women with pain associated with endometriosis.\nObjectives\nTo assess effects of NSAIDs used for management of pain in women with endometriosis compared with placebo, other NSAIDs, other pain management drugs or no treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials (October 2016), published in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, as well as MEDLINE (January 2008 to October 2016), Embase (date limited from 1 January 2016 to 19 October 2016, as all earlier references are included in CENTRAL output as a result of the Embase project), registers of ongoing trials and the reference lists of relevant publications. We identified no new randomised controlled trials. Unless we identify new evidence in the future, we will not update this review.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) describing use of NSAIDs for management of pain associated with endometriosis in women of all ages.\nData collection and analysis\nIn the 2009 update of this review, two review authors (CA and SH) independently read and extracted data from each of the included studies. We analysed cross-over trials using the inverse variance method of RevMan to calculate odds ratios for binary outcomes.\nMain results\nWe identified no new trials for the 2016 update. This review includes two trials, but we included only one trial, with 24 women, in the analyses.\nThe overall risk of bias was unclear owing to lack of methodological detail. Using the GRADE method, we judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. We downgraded evidence for risk of bias and for imprecision (wide confidence intervals and evidence based on a single small trial).\nComparison of NSAIDs (naproxen) versus placebo revealed no evidence of a positive effect on pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 3.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 17.69; one trial, 24 women; very low-quality evidence) in women with endometriosis. Evidence indicating whether women taking NSAIDs (naproxen) were less likely to require additional analgesia (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.29; one trial, 24 women; very low-quality evidence) or to experience side effects (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.47; one trial, 24 women; very low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo was inconclusive.\nStudies provided no data on quality of life, effects on daily activities, absence from work or school, need for more invasive treatment or participant satisfaction with treatment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOwing to lack of high-quality evidence and lack of reporting of outcomes of interest for this review, we can make no judgement as to whether NSAIDs (naproxen) are effective in managing pain caused by endometriosis. There is no evidence that one NSAID is more effective than another. As shown in other Cochrane reviews, women taking NSAIDs must be aware that these drugs may cause unintended effects.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Evidence was of very low quality owing to risk of bias and imprecision (findings were based on a single small trial)." } ]
query-laysum	7466	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nPneumonia is the most common hospital-acquired infection affecting patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, current national guidelines for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) are several years old and the diagnosis of pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients (VAP) has been subject to considerable recent attention. The optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for HAP in the critically ill is uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of short versus prolonged-course antibiotics for HAP in critically ill adults, including patients with VAP.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to June 2015), MEDLINE in-process and other non-indexed citations (5 June 2015), EMBASE (2010 to June 2015), LILACS (1982 to June 2015) and Web of Science (1955 to June 2015).\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a fixed 'short' duration of antibiotic therapy with a 'prolonged' course for HAP (including patients with VAP) in critically ill adults.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors conducted data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information.\nMain results\nWe identified six relevant studies involving 1088 participants. This included two new studies published after the date of our previous review (2011). There was substantial variation in participants, in the diagnostic criteria used to define an episode of pneumonia, in the interventions and in the reported outcomes. We found no evidence relating to patients with a high probability of HAP who were not mechanically ventilated. For patients with VAP, overall a short seven- or eight-day course of antibiotics compared with a prolonged 10- to 15-day course increased 28-day antibiotic-free days (two studies; N = 431; mean difference (MD) 4.02 days; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.26 to 5.78) and reduced recurrence of VAP due to multi-resistant organisms (one study; N = 110; odds ratio (OR) 0.44; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.95), without adversely affecting mortality and other recurrence outcomes. However, for cases of VAP specifically due to non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli (NF-GNB), recurrence was greater after short-course therapy (two studies, N = 176; OR 2.18; 95% CI 1.14 to 4.16), though mortality outcomes were not significantly different. One study found that a three-day course of antibiotic therapy for patients with suspected HAP but a low Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) was associated with a significantly lower risk of superinfection or emergence of antimicrobial resistance, compared with standard (prolonged) course therapy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOn the basis of a small number of studies and appreciating the lack of uniform definition of pneumonia, we conclude that for patients with VAP not due to NF-GNB a short, fixed course (seven or eight days) of antibiotic therapy appears not to increase the risk of adverse clinical outcomes, and may reduce the emergence of resistant organisms, compared with a prolonged course (10 to 15 days). However, for patients with VAP due to NF-GNB, there appears to be a higher risk of recurrence following short-course therapy. These findings do not differ from those of our previous review and are broadly consistent with current guidelines. There are few data from RCTs comparing durations of therapy in non-ventilated patients with HAP, but on the basis of a single study, short-course (three-day) therapy for HAP appears not to be associated with worse clinical outcome, and may reduce the risk of subsequent infection or the emergence of resistant organisms when there is low probability of pneumonia according to the CPIS.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "The evidence was current as of June 2015. We identified six RCTs, which had enrolled 1088 patients. The studies took quite different approaches to their investigations, and we found only one study that had explored the duration of antibiotic therapy for ICU patients who had HAP, but were not mechanically ventilated." } ]
query-laysum	7467	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMindfulness-based smoking cessation interventions may aid smoking cessation by teaching individuals to pay attention to, and work mindfully with, negative affective states, cravings, and other symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. Types of mindfulness-based interventions include mindfulness training, which involves training in meditation; acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT); distress tolerance training; and yoga.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation among people who smoke, and whether these interventions have an effect on mental health outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and trial registries to 15 April 2021. We also employed an automated search strategy, developed as part of the Human Behaviour Change Project, using Microsoft Academic.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared a mindfulness-based intervention for smoking cessation with another smoking cessation programme or no treatment, and assessed smoking cessation at six months or longer. We excluded studies that solely recruited pregnant women.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking cessation at the longest time point, using the most rigorous definition available, on an intention-to-treat basis. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for smoking cessation for each study, where possible. We grouped eligible studies according to the type of intervention and type of comparator. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate, using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. We summarised mental health outcomes narratively.\nMain results\nWe included 21 studies, with 8186 participants. Most recruited adults from the community, and the majority (15 studies) were conducted in the USA. We judged four of the studies to be at low risk of bias, nine at unclear risk, and eight at high risk. Mindfulness-based interventions varied considerably in design and content, as did comparators, therefore, we pooled small groups of relatively comparable studies.\nWe did not detect a clear benefit or harm of mindfulness training interventions on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.46; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 542 participants; low-certainty evidence), less intensive smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.19; I2 = 60%; 5 studies, 813 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or no treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.53; 1 study, 325 participants; low-certainty evidence). In each comparison, the 95% CI encompassed benefit (i.e. higher quit rates), harm (i.e. lower quit rates) and no difference. In one study of mindfulness-based relapse prevention, we did not detect a clear benefit or harm of the intervention over no treatment (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.67; 86 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nWe did not detect a clear benefit or harm of ACT on quit rates compared with less intensive behavioural treatments, including nicotine replacement therapy alone (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.02; 1 study, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence), brief advice (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.75; 1 study, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or less intensive ACT (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.01; 1 study, 100 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was a high level of heterogeneity (I2 = 82%) across studies comparing ACT with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatments, meaning it was not appropriate to report a pooled result.\nWe did not detect a clear benefit or harm of distress tolerance training on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.98; 1 study, 69 participants; low-certainty evidence) or less intensive smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 8.08; 1 study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nWe did not detect a clear benefit or harm of yoga on quit rates compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.40 to 5.16; 1 study, 55 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nExcluding studies at high risk of bias did not substantially alter the results, nor did using complete case data as opposed to using data from all participants randomised.\nNine studies reported on changes in mental health and well-being, including depression, anxiety, perceived stress, and negative and positive affect. Variation in measures and methodological differences between studies meant we could not meta-analyse these data. One study found a greater reduction in perceived stress in participants who received a face-to-face mindfulness training programme versus an intensity-matched programme. However, the remaining eight studies found no clinically meaningful differences in mental health and well-being between participants who received mindfulness-based treatments and participants who received another treatment or no treatment (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe did not detect a clear benefit of mindfulness-based smoking cessation interventions for increasing smoking quit rates or changing mental health and well-being. This was the case when compared with intensity-matched smoking cessation treatment, less intensive smoking cessation treatment, or no treatment. However, the evidence was of low and very low certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, meaning future evidence may very likely change our interpretation of the results. Further RCTs of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation compared with active comparators are needed. There is also a need for more consistent reporting of mental health and well-being outcomes in studies of mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation.\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 21 studies in 8186 young people and adults who smoked.\nThe studies tested a range of mindfulness-based treatments, including mindfulness training (8 studies), ACT (8 studies), yoga (3 studies), and distress tolerance training (2 studies). Studies compared these treatments with:\n- other stop-smoking treatments that were equally time-intensive (such as counselling);\n- other stop-smoking treatments that were less intensive (such as brief advice);\n- no treatment.\nMost studies took place in the USA (15 studies). Others took place in Hong Kong (2 studies), Brazil (1 study), Ireland (1 study), and Cyprus (1 study). One study did not report the country it took place in." } ]
query-laysum	7468	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSeptal surgery is a well-established procedure used to treat nasal obstruction due to deviation of the nasal septum, which is carried out under local or general anaesthesia. Local anaesthesia is used for postoperative pain control, but its effectiveness and safety are unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of perioperative local anaesthesia for reducing pain in septal surgery and to evaluate the risk of associated complications.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trial Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 9 January 2018.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised controlled trials involving adults or children (or both) who underwent septal surgery. We included studies comparing local anaesthesia versus no treatment/placebo. We also included studies comparing different types of local anaesthesia to each other (i.e. local injection, the addition of an anaesthetic agent to nasal packing, where used, and sphenopalatine ganglion block).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcome was postoperative pain intensity at 12, 24 and 48 hours measured by visual analogue scale (VAS) or another pain outcome tool including numerical or verbal rating scales. Secondary outcomes were requirement for additional analgesia, duration of hospitalisation and adverse effects (postoperative bleeding and postoperative vomiting). We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.\nMain results\nWe included seven randomised controlled trials involving 493 participants. In all studies the participants were adults undergoing septoplasty. These studies were heterogeneous and the quality of the body of evidence ranged from low to very low. Few of the studies provided reliable data for the primary outcome in this review.\nLocal anaesthetic injection versus no treatment/placebo\nTwo studies (142 participants) compared local anaesthetic injection versus placebo but these studies did not report postoperative pain at 12, 24 or 48 hours. It is unclear whether local anaesthetic injection changed the risk of vomiting (odds ratio (OR) 3.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 79.23; 60 participants; one study) (low-quality evidence). Neither study reported the requirement for additional analgesia, duration of hospitalisation or uncontrollable postoperative bleeding.\nLocal anaesthetic application via nasal packing versus no packing/packing with placebo\nFour studies (301 participants) used nasal packing postoperatively and compared the addition of local anaesthetic to the pack versus packing with a placebo added. Compared with packing with placebo, the addition of local anaesthetic to nasal packing reduced the pain score on a VAS (ranging from 0 to 100) at 12 hours (mean difference (MD) -16.95, 95% CI -22.27 to -11.62; 151 participants; two studies; I2 = 49%) (low-quality evidence) and at 24 hours postoperatively (MD -7.53, 95% CI -9.76 to -5.29; 268 participants; four studies; I2 = 83%) (very low-quality evidence). These studies did not report postoperative pain at 48 hours. The addition of local anaesthetic to nasal packing decreased the requirement for additional analgesia (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; 151 participants; two studies; I2 = 15%) (moderate-quality evidence). No studies reported duration of hospitalisation, postoperative vomiting or uncontrollable postoperative bleeding.\nNo studies compared the addition of local anaesthetic to nasal packing versus no packing.\nSphenopalatine ganglion block versus no treatment/placebo\nOne study (50 participants) compared sphenopalatine ganglion block versus no treatment but this study did not report postoperative pain, requirement for additional analgesia, duration of hospitalisation, vomiting or uncontrollable postoperative bleeding.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe addition of local anaesthesia to nasal packs (if these are being used) following septal surgery may reduce postoperative pain within the first 12 hours, compared to nasal packing with a placebo added. The effect is uncertain at 24 hours because the quality of the evidence is very low. Evidence was lacking for other outcomes, including adverse effects. There is a lack of evidence about the effects of local anaesthesia added to nasal packing compared to no nasal packing. There is also a lack of evidence about the effects of local anaesthesia given by injection and the effects of sphenopalatine ganglion block.\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": "Septal surgery is used to treat nasal obstruction due to deviation of the nasal septum. Local anaesthesia is used to decrease pain after the operation and there are several types (e.g. local injection, addition of local anaesthesia to nasal packing, if this is being used to manage bleeding after the operation, and regional nerve block). Most surgeons agree on the use of local anaesthesia, but the choice of which type to use depends on the surgeon's preference." } ]
query-laysum	7469	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nOccupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) causes significant functional impairment, disruption of work, and discomfort in the working population. Different preventive measures such as protective gloves, barrier creams and moisturisers can be used, but it is not clear how effective these are. This is an update of a Cochrane review which was previously published in 2010.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of primary preventive interventions and strategies (physical and behavioural) for preventing OIHD in healthy people (who have no hand dermatitis) who work in occupations where the skin is at risk of damage due to contact with water, detergents, chemicals or other irritants, or from wearing gloves.\nSearch methods\nWe updated our searches of the following databases to January 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLlNE, and Embase. We also searched five trials registers and checked the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. We handsearched two sets of conference proceedings.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effectiveness of barrier creams, moisturisers, gloves, or educational interventions compared to no intervention for the primary prevention of OIHD under field conditions.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were signs and symptoms of OIHD developed during the trials, and the frequency of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects.\nMain results\nWe included nine RCTs involving 2888 participants without occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) at baseline. Six studies, including 1533 participants, investigated the effects of barrier creams, moisturisers, or both. Three studies, including 1355 participants, assessed the effectiveness of skin protection education on the prevention of OIHD. No studies were eligible that investigated the effects of protective gloves. Among each type of intervention, there was heterogeneity concerning the criteria for assessing signs and symptoms of OIHD, the products, and the occupations. Selection bias, performance bias, and reporting bias were generally unclear across all studies. The risk of detection bias was low in five studies and high in one study. The risk of other biases was low in four studies and high in two studies.\nThe eligible trials involved a variety of participants, including: metal workers exposed to cutting fluids, dye and print factory workers, gut cleaners in swine slaughterhouses, cleaners and kitchen workers, nurse apprentices, hospital employees handling irritants, and hairdressing apprentices. All studies were undertaken at the respective work places. Study duration ranged from four weeks to three years. The participants' ages ranged from 16 to 67 years.\nMeta-analyses for barrier creams, moisturisers, a combination of both barrier creams and moisturisers, or skin protection education showed imprecise effects favouring the intervention. Twenty-nine per cent of participants who applied barrier creams developed signs of OIHD, compared to 33% of the controls, so the risk may be slightly reduced with this measure (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.06; 999 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence). However, this risk reduction may not be clinically important. There may be a clinically important protective effect with the use of moisturisers: in the intervention groups, 13% of participants developed symptoms of OIHD compared to 19% of the controls (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.09; 507 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). Likewise, there may be a clinically important protective effect from using a combination of barrier creams and moisturisers: 8% of participants in the intervention group developed signs of OIHD, compared to 13% of the controls (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.42; 474 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether skin protection education reduces the risk of developing signs of OIHD (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08; 1355 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). Twenty-one per cent of participants who received skin protection education developed signs of OIHD, compared to 28% of the controls.\nNone of the studies addressed the frequency of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects of the products directly. However, in three studies of barrier creams, the reasons for withdrawal from the studies were unrelated to adverse effects. Likewise, in one study of moisturisers plus barrier creams, and in one study of skin protection education, reasons for dropout were unrelated to adverse effects. The remaining studies (one to two in each comparison) reported dropouts without stating how many of them may have been due to adverse reactions to the interventions. We judged the quality of this evidence as moderate, due to the indirectness of the results. The investigated interventions to prevent OIHD probably cause few or no serious adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMoisturisers used alone or in combination with barrier creams may result in a clinically important protective effect, either in the long- or short-term, for the primary prevention of OIHD. Barrier creams alone may have slight protective effect, but this does not appear to be clinically important. The results for all of these comparisons were imprecise, and the low quality of the evidence means that our confidence in the effect estimates is limited. For skin protection education, the results varied substantially across the trials, the effect was imprecise, and the pooled risk reduction was not large enough to be clinically important. The very low quality of the evidence means that we are unsure as to whether skin protection education reduces the risk of developing OIHD. The interventions probably cause few or no serious adverse effects.\nWe conclude that at present there is insufficient evidence to confidently assess the effectiveness of interventions used in the primary prevention of OIHD. This does not necessarily mean that current measures are ineffective. Even though the update of this review included larger studies of reasonable quality, there is still a need for trials which apply standardised measures for the detection of OIHD in order to determine the effectiveness of the different prevention strategies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "For barrier creams, moisturisers, or a combination of both, the quality of the evidence was low concerning the prevention of OIHD. There was not enough information and hand dermatitis was assessed differently across the studies.\nFor educational programmes, the quality of the evidence was very low concerning the prevention of hand skin irritation. There was not enough information, hand dermatitis was assessed differently across the studies, and the studies were poorly conducted in some important respects.\nFor the other key outcome, safety and tolerability of the treatments, the quality of the evidence was moderate because only indirect results were available." } ]
query-laysum	7470	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nWomen with suspected early-stage ovarian cancer need surgical staging which involves taking samples from areas within the abdominal cavity and retroperitoneal lymph nodes in order to inform further treatment. One potential strategy is to surgically stage all women with suspicious ovarian masses, without any histological information during surgery. This avoids incomplete staging, but puts more women at risk of potential surgical over-treatment.\nA second strategy is to perform a two-stage procedure to remove the pelvic mass and subject it to paraffin sectioning, which involves formal tissue fixing with formalin and paraffin embedding, prior to ultrathin sectioning and multiple site sampling of the tumour. Surgeons may then base further surgical staging on this histology, reducing the rate of over-treatment, but conferring additional surgical and anaesthetic morbidity.\nA third strategy is to perform a rapid histological analysis on the ovarian mass during surgery, known as 'frozen section'. Tissues are snap frozen to allow fine tissue sections to be cut and basic histochemical staining to be performed. Surgeons can perform or avoid the full surgical staging procedure depending on the results. However, this is a relatively crude test compared to paraffin sections, which take many hours to perform. With frozen section there is therefore a risk of misdiagnosing malignancy and understaging women subsequently found to have a presumed early-stage malignancy (false negative), or overstaging women without a malignancy (false positive). Therefore it is important to evaluate the accuracy and usefulness of adding frozen section to the clinical decision-making process.\nObjectives\nTo assess the diagnostic test accuracy of frozen section (index test) to diagnose histopathological ovarian cancer in women with suspicious pelvic masses as verified by paraffin section (reference standard).\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2015) and relevant Cochrane registers.\nSelection criteria\nStudies that used frozen section for intraoperative diagnosis of ovarian masses suspicious of malignancy, provided there was sufficient data to construct 2 x 2 tables. We excluded articles without an available English translation.\nData collection and analysis\nAuthors independently assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2) domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, flow and timing. Data extraction converted 3 x 3 tables of per patient results presented in articles into 2 x 2 tables, for two index test thresholds.\nMain results\nAll studies were retrospective, and the majority reported consecutive sampling of cases. Sensitivity and specificity results were available from 38 studies involving 11,181 participants (3200 with invasive cancer, 1055 with borderline tumours and 6926 with benign tumours, determined by paraffin section as the reference standard). The median prevalence of malignancy was 29% (interquartile range (IQR) 23% to 36%, range 11% to 63%). We assessed test performance using two thresholds for the frozen section test. Firstly, we used a test threshold for frozen sections, defining positive test results as invasive cancer and negative test results as borderline and benign tumours. The average sensitivity was 90.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 87.6% to 92.0%; with most studies typically reporting range of 71% to 100%), and average specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 99.2% to 99.7%; range 96% to 100%).\nSimilarly, we analysed sensitivity and specificity using a second threshold for frozen section, where both invasive cancer and borderline tumours were considered test positive and benign cases were classified as negative. Average sensitivity was 96.5% (95% CI 95.5% to 97.3%; typical range 83% to 100%), and average specificity was 89.5% (95% CI 86.6% to 91.9%; typical range 58% to 99%).\nResults were available from the same 38 studies, including the subset of 3953 participants with a frozen section result of either borderline or invasive cancer, based on final diagnosis of malignancy. Studies with small numbers of disease-negative cases (borderline cases) had more variation in estimates of specificity. Average sensitivity was 94.0% (95% CI 92.0% to 95.5%; range 73% to 100%), and average specificity was 95.8% (95% CI 92.4% to 97.8%; typical range 81% to 100%).\nOur additional analyses showed that, if the frozen section showed a benign or invasive cancer, the final diagnosis would remain the same in, on average, 94% and 99% of cases, respectively.\nIn cases where the frozen section diagnosis was a borderline tumour, on average 21% of the final diagnoses would turn out to be invasive cancer.\nIn three studies, the same pathologist interpreted the index and reference standard tests, potentially causing bias. No studies reported blinding pathologists to index test results when reporting paraffin sections.\nIn heterogeneity analyses, there were no statistically significant differences between studies with pathologists of different levels of expertise.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn a hypothetical population of 1000 patients (290 with cancer and 80 with a borderline tumour), if a frozen section positive test result for invasive cancer alone was used to diagnose cancer, on average 261 women would have a correct diagnosis of a cancer, and 706 women would be correctly diagnosed without a cancer. However, 4 women would be incorrectly diagnosed with a cancer (false positive), and 29 with a cancer would be missed (false negative).\nIf a frozen section result of either an invasive cancer or a borderline tumour was used as a positive test to diagnose cancer, on average 280 women would be correctly diagnosed with a cancer and 635 would be correctly diagnosed without. However, 75 women would be incorrectly diagnosed with a cancer and 10 women with a cancer would be missed.\nThe largest discordance is within the reporting of frozen section borderline tumours. Investigation into factors leading to discordance within centres and standardisation of criteria for reporting borderline tumours may help improve accuracy. Some centres may choose to perform surgical staging in women with frozen section diagnosis of a borderline ovarian tumour to reduce the number of false positives. In their interpretation of this review, readers should evaluate results from studies most typical of their population of patients.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How was this review conducted?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We searched all available studies reporting use of frozen section in women with suspicious ovarian masses. We excluded studies without an English translation and studies without enough information to allow us to analyse the data." } ]
query-laysum	7471	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nNitrous oxide has been used for over 160 years for the induction and maintenance of general anaesthesia. It has been used as a sole agent but is most often employed as part of a technique using other anaesthetic gases, intravenous agents, or both. Its low tissue solubility (and therefore rapid kinetics), low cost, and low rate of cardiorespiratory complications have made nitrous oxide by far the most commonly used general anaesthetic. The accumulating evidence regarding adverse effects of nitrous oxide administration has led many anaesthetists to question its continued routine use in a variety of operating room settings. Adverse events may result from both the biological actions of nitrous oxide and the fact that to deliver an effective dose, nitrous oxide, which is a relatively weak anaesthetic agent, needs to be given in high concentrations that restrict oxygen delivery (for example, a common mixture is 30% oxygen with 70% nitrous oxide). As well as the risk of low blood oxygen levels, concerns have also been raised regarding the risk of compromising the immune system, impaired cognition, postoperative cardiovascular complications, bowel obstruction from distention, and possible respiratory compromise.\nObjectives\nTo determine if nitrous oxide-based anaesthesia results in similar outcomes to nitrous oxide-free anaesthesia in adults undergoing surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014 Issue 10); MEDLINE (1966 to 17 October 2014); EMBASE (1974 to 17 October 2014); and ISI Web of Science (1974 to 17 October 2014). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings, and ongoing trials up to 17 October 2014 on specific websites (http://clinicaltrials.gov/, http://controlled-trials.com/, and http://www.centerwatch.com).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing general anaesthesia where nitrous oxide was part of the anaesthetic technique used for the induction or maintenance of general anaesthesia (or both) with any general anaesthesia using a volatile anaesthetic or propofol-based maintenance of anaesthesia but no nitrous oxide for adults undergoing surgery. Our primary outcome was inhospital case fatality rate. Secondary outcomes were complications and length of stay.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the outcome data. We used meta-analysis for data synthesis. Heterogeneity was examined with the Chi² test and by calculating the I² statistic. We used a fixed-effect model if the measure of inconsistency was low for all comparisons (I² statistic < 50%); otherwise we used a random-effects model for measures with high inconsistency. We undertook subgroup analyses to explore inconsistency and sensitivity analyses to evaluate whether the results were robust. We assessed the quality of evidence of the main outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.\nMain results\nWe included 35 trials (13,872 adult participants). Seven included studies were at low risk of bias. We identified eight studies as awaiting classification since we could not obtain the full texts, and had insufficient information to include or exclude them. We included data from 24 trials for quantitative synthesis. The results of meta-analyses showed that nitrous oxide-based techniques increased the incidence of pulmonary atelectasis (odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 2.10, P = 0.002), but had no effects on the inhospital case fatality rate, the incidence of pneumonia, myocardial infarction, stroke, severe nausea and vomiting, venous thromboembolism, wound infection, or the length of hospital stay. The sensitivity analyses suggested that the results of the meta-analyses were all robust except for the outcomes of pneumonia, and severe nausea and vomiting. Two trials reported length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay but the data were skewed so were not pooled. Both trials reported that nitrous oxide-based techniques had no effects on the length of ICU stay. We rated the quality of evidence for two outcomes (pulmonary atelectasis, myocardial infarction) as high, four outcomes (inhospital case fatality rate, stroke, venous thromboembolism, length of hospital stay) as moderate, and three (pneumonia, severe nausea and vomiting, wound infection rate) as low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the evidence from this Cochrane review, the avoidance of nitrous oxide may be reasonable in participants with pre-existing poor pulmonary function or at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Since there are eight studies awaiting classification, selection bias may exist in our systematic review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "We found that general anaesthesia with nitrous oxide increased the risk of pulmonary atelectasis (i.e. failure of the lungs to expand fully). When we restricted the results to the highest quality studies only, we found evidence that nitrous oxide may potentially increase the risk of pneumonia and severe nausea and vomiting. However, nitrous oxide had no effect on the patients' survival, the incidence of heart attack, stroke, wound infection, the occurrence of blood clots within veins, the length of hospital stay, or the length of intensive care unit stay." } ]
query-laysum	7472	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nInvasive fungal infections (IFIs) are life-threatening opportunistic infections that occur in immunocompromised or critically ill people. Early detection and treatment of IFIs is essential to reduce morbidity and mortality in these populations. (1→3)-β-D-glucan (BDG) is a component of the fungal cell wall that can be detected in the serum of infected individuals. The serum BDG test is a way to quickly detect these infections and initiate treatment before they become life-threatening. Five different versions of the BDG test are commercially available: Fungitell, Glucatell, Wako, Fungitec-G, and Dynamiker Fungus.\nObjectives\nTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of commercially available tests for serum BDG to detect selected invasive fungal infections (IFIs) among immunocompromised or critically ill people.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid) up to 26 June 2019. We used SCOPUS to perform a forward and backward citation search of relevant articles. We placed no restriction on language or study design.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all references published on or after 1995, which is when the first commercial BDG assays became available. We considered published, peer-reviewed studies on the diagnostic test accuracy of BDG for diagnosis of fungal infections in immunocompromised people or people in intensive care that used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria or equivalent as a reference standard. We considered all study designs (case-control, prospective consecutive cohort, and retrospective cohort studies). We excluded case studies and studies with fewer than ten participants. We also excluded animal and laboratory studies. We excluded meeting abstracts because they provided insufficient information.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed the standard procedures outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews. Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and performed a quality assessment for each study. For each study, we created a 2 × 2 matrix and calculated sensitivity and specificity, as well as a 95% confidence interval (CI). We evaluated the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy-Revised (QUADAS-2). We were unable to perform a meta-analysis due to considerable variation between studies, with the exception of Candida, so we have provided descriptive statistics such as receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) and forest plots by test brand to show variation in study results.\nMain results\nWe included in the review 49 studies with a total of 6244 participants. About half of these studies (24/49; 49%) were conducted with people who had cancer or hematologic malignancies. Most studies (36/49; 73%) focused on the Fungitell BDG test. This was followed by Glucatell (5 studies; 10%), Wako (3 studies; 6%), Fungitec-G (3 studies; 6%), and Dynamiker (2 studies; 4%). About three-quarters of studies (79%) utilized either a prospective or a retrospective consecutive study design; the remainder used a case-control design.\nBased on the manufacturer's recommended cut-off levels for the Fungitell test, sensitivity ranged from 27% to 100%, and specificity from 0% to 100%. For the Glucatell assay, sensitivity ranged from 50% to 92%, and specificity ranged from 41% to 94%. Limited studies have used the Dynamiker, Wako, and Fungitec-G assays, but individual sensitivities and specificities ranged from 50% to 88%, and from 60% to 100%, respectively. Results show considerable differences between studies, even by manufacturer, which prevented a formal meta-analysis. Most studies (32/49; 65%) had no reported high risk of bias in any of the QUADAS-2 domains. The QUADAS-2 domains that had higher risk of bias included participant selection and flow and timing.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe noted considerable heterogeneity between studies, and these differences precluded a formal meta-analysis. Because of wide variation in the results, it is not possible to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the BDG test in specific settings. Future studies estimating the accuracy of BDG tests should be linked to the way the test is used in clinical practice and should clearly describe the sampling protocol and the relationship of time of testing to time of diagnosis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main results of the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "This review included studies of 6244 people who were at risk of getting fungal infections. Study results show that accuracy varied widely across studies. The variation was so great that it was not possible to obtain a reliable estimate of the accuracy of the various tests." } ]
query-laysum	7473	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSince 1879, the year of the first documented medical telephone consultation, the ability to consult by telephone has become an integral part of modern patient-centred healthcare systems. Nowadays, up to a quarter of all care consultations are conducted by telephone. Studies have quantified the impact of medical telephone consultation on clinicians' workload and detected the need for quality improvement. While doctors routinely receive training in communication and consultation skills, this does not necessarily include the specificities of telephone communication and consultation. Several studies assessed the short-term effect of interventions aimed at improving clinicians' telephone consultation skills, but there is no systematic review reporting patient-oriented outcomes or outcomes of interest to clinicians.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of training interventions for clinicians' telephone consultation skills and patient outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other electronic databases and two trial registers up to 19 May 2016, and we handsearched references, checked citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies and data.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating training interventions compared with any control intervention, including no intervention, for improving clinicians' telephone consultation skills with patients and their impact on patient outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies using standard Cochrane and EPOC guidance and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We contacted study authors where additional information was needed. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data analysis.\nMain results\nWe identified one very small controlled before-after study performed in 1989: this study used a validated tool to assess the effects of a training intervention on paediatric residents' history-taking and case management skills. It reported no difference compared to no intervention, but authors did not report any quantitative analyses and could not supply additional data. We rated this study as being at high risk of bias. Based on GRADE, we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low, and consequently it is uncertain whether this intervention improves clinicians' telephone skills.\nWe did not find any study assessing the effect of training interventions for improving clinicians' telephone communication skills on patient primary outcomes (health outcomes measured by validated tools or biomedical markers or patient behaviours, patient morbidity or mortality, patient satisfaction, urgency assessment accuracy or adverse events).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTelephone consultation skills are part of a wider set of remote consulting skills whose importance is growing as more and more medical care is delivered from a distance with the support of information technology. Nevertheless, no evidence specifically coming from telephone consultation studies is available, and the training of clinicians at the moment has to be guided by studies and models based on face-to-face communication, which do not consider the differences between these two communicative dimensions. There is an urgent need for more research assessing the effect of different training interventions on clinicians' telephone consultation skills and their effect on patient outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Since its invention, the telephone has been increasingly used by clinicians and patients to manage health problems. Nowadays, up to a quarter of all clinical consultations happen by phone. What we know from previous research is that clinicians' telephone skills are of low quality, and clinicians receive poor specific training in their education. These important and delicate professional skills are left to individual clinicians' own intuition and judgement to cultivate and improve. Overall research in telephone medicine clearly shows that telephone consultations can have an important role in the delivery of healthcare with quantitative impact on clinicians' workload, hospital care, patient outcomes and job satisfaction levels.\nWe searched for studies where doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals underwent educational interventions for developing and improving telephone consultation skills with patients. We included studies from all settings and excluded studies dealing just with communication between clinicians." } ]
query-laysum	7474	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease is one of the commonest severe monogenic disorders in the world, due to the inheritance of two abnormal haemoglobin (beta globin) genes. Sickle cell disease can cause severe pain, significant end-organ damage, pulmonary complications, and premature death. Stroke affects around 10% of children with sickle cell anaemia (HbSS). Chronic blood transfusions may reduce the risk of vaso-occlusion and stroke by diluting the proportion of sickled cells in the circulation.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002, and last updated in 2017.\nObjectives\nTo assess risks and benefits of chronic blood transfusion regimens in people with sickle cell disease for primary and secondary stroke prevention (excluding silent cerebral infarcts).\nSearch methods\nWe searched for relevant trials in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980), and ongoing trial databases; all searches current to 8 October 2019.\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 19 September 2019.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing red blood cell transfusions as prophylaxis for stroke in people with sickle cell disease to alternative or standard treatment. There were no restrictions by outcomes examined, language or publication status.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trial eligibility and the risk of bias and extracted data.\nMain results\nWe included five trials (660 participants) published between 1998 and 2016. Four of these trials were terminated early. The vast majority of participants had the haemoglobin (Hb)SS form of sickle cell disease.\nThree trials compared regular red cell transfusions to standard care in primary prevention of stroke: two in children with no previous long-term transfusions; and one in children and adolescents on long-term transfusion.\nTwo trials compared the drug hydroxyurea (hydroxycarbamide) and phlebotomy to long-term transfusions and iron chelation therapy: one in primary prevention (children); and one in secondary prevention (children and adolescents).\nThe quality of the evidence was very low to moderate across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. This was due to the trials being at a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, indirectness and imprecise outcome estimates.\nRed cell transfusions versus standard care\nChildren with no previous long-term transfusions\nLong-term transfusions probably reduce the incidence of clinical stroke in children with a higher risk of stroke (abnormal transcranial doppler velocities or previous history of silent cerebral infarct), risk ratio 0.12 (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.49) (two trials, 326 participants), moderate quality evidence.\nLong-term transfusions may: reduce the incidence of other sickle cell disease-related complications (acute chest syndrome, risk ratio 0.24 (95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.48)) (two trials, 326 participants); increase quality of life (difference estimate -0.54, 95% confidence interval -0.92 to -0.17) (one trial, 166 participants); but make little or no difference to IQ scores (least square mean: 1.7, standard error 95% confidence interval -1.1 to 4.4) (one trial, 166 participants), low quality evidence.\nWe are very uncertain whether long-term transfusions: reduce the risk of transient ischaemic attacks, Peto odds ratio 0.13 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 2.11) (two trials, 323 participants); have any effect on all-cause mortality, no deaths reported (two trials, 326 participants); or increase the risk of alloimmunisation, risk ratio 3.16 (95% confidence interval 0.18 to 57.17) (one trial, 121 participants), very low quality evidence.\nChildren and adolescents with previous long-term transfusions (one trial, 79 participants)\nWe are very uncertain whether continuing long-term transfusions reduces the incidence of: stroke, risk ratio 0.22 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 4.35); or all-cause mortality, Peto odds ratio 8.00 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 404.12), very low quality evidence.\nSeveral review outcomes were only reported in one trial arm (sickle cell disease-related complications, alloimmunisation, transient ischaemic attacks).\nThe trial did not report neurological impairment, or quality of life.\nHydroxyurea and phlebotomy versus red cell transfusions and chelation\nNeither trial reported on neurological impairment, alloimmunisation, or quality of life.\nPrimary prevention, children (one trial, 121 participants)\nSwitching to hydroxyurea and phlebotomy may have little or no effect on liver iron concentrations, mean difference -1.80 mg Fe/g dry-weight liver (95% confidence interval -5.16 to 1.56), low quality evidence.\nWe are very uncertain whether switching to hydroxyurea and phlebotomy has any effect on: risk of stroke (no strokes); all-cause mortality (no deaths); transient ischaemic attacks, risk ratio 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.21 to 4.84); or other sickle cell disease-related complications (acute chest syndrome, risk ratio 2.03 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 10.69)), very low quality evidence.\nSecondary prevention, children and adolescents (one trial, 133 participants)\nSwitching to hydroxyurea and phlebotomy may: increase the risk of sickle cell disease-related serious adverse events, risk ratio 3.10 (95% confidence interval 1.42 to 6.75); but have little or no effect on median liver iron concentrations (hydroxyurea, 17.3 mg Fe/g dry-weight liver (interquartile range 10.0 to 30.6)); transfusion 17.3 mg Fe/g dry-weight liver (interquartile range 8.8 to 30.7), low quality evidence.\nWe are very uncertain whether switching to hydroxyurea and phlebotomy: increases the risk of stroke, risk ratio 14.78 (95% confidence interval 0.86 to 253.66); or has any effect on all-cause mortality, Peto odds ratio 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 15.92); or transient ischaemic attacks, risk ratio 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.25 to 1.74), very low quality evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no evidence for managing adults, or children who do not have HbSS sickle cell disease.\nIn children who are at higher risk of stroke and have not had previous long-term transfusions, there is moderate quality evidence that long-term red cell transfusions reduce the risk of stroke, and low quality evidence they also reduce the risk of other sickle cell disease-related complications.\nIn primary and secondary prevention of stroke there is low quality evidence that switching to hydroxyurea with phlebotomy has little or no effect on the liver iron concentration.\nIn secondary prevention of stroke there is low-quality evidence that switching to hydroxyurea with phlebotomy increases the risk of sickle cell disease-related events.\nAll other evidence in this review is of very low quality.\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 five randomised controlled trials which enrolled a total of 660 participants. Three trials compared blood transfusions to no blood transfusions and two trials compared blood transfusion to the drug hydroxyurea. Trials were published between 1998 and 2016 and included children and sometimes adolescents; the majority had one form of sickle cell disease (HbSS).\nAll trials received government funding." } ]
query-laysum	7476	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nMeningitis is inflammation of the meninges, the layers that protect the brain and spinal cord. Acute meningitis is an emergent disease that develops over the course of hours to several days. Delay in treatment can lead to serious outcomes.\nInflammation of the meninges is assessed by analysing cerebrospinal fluid. Identifying the pathogen in cerebrospinal fluid is another way to diagnose meningitis. Cerebrospinal fluid is collected by doing a lumbar puncture, which is an invasive test, and can be avoided if a physical examination excludes the diagnosis of meningitis. However, most physical examinations, such as nuchal rigidity, Kernig's test, and Brudzinski's test, are not sufficiently sensitive to exclude meningitis completely.\nJolt accentuation of headache is a new and less well-recognised physical examination, which assesses meningeal irritation. It is judged as positive if the headache is exacerbated by rotating the head horizontally two or three times per second. A 1991 observational study initially reported high sensitivity of this examination to predict pleocytosis. Pleocytosis, an abnormally high cerebrospinal fluid sample white cell count, is an accepted indicator of nervous system infection or inflammation. Jolt accentuation of headache may therefore accurately rule out meningitis without the use of lumbar puncture. However, more recent cross-sectional studies have reported variable diagnostic accuracy.\nObjectives\nTo estimate the diagnostic accuracy of jolt accentuation of headache for detecting acute meningitis in emergency settings. Secondary objectives: to investigate the sources of heterogeneity, including study population, patient condition, and types of meningitis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Elsevier) to 27 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Ichushi-Web Version 5.0 to 28 April 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included cross-sectional studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of jolt accentuation of headache for people with suspected meningitis in emergency settings. We included participants of any age and any severity of illness. Meningitis should be diagnosed with any reference standard, such as cerebrospinal fluid pleocytosis, proof of causative agents, or autopsy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently collated study data. We assessed methodological quality of studies using QUADAS-2 criteria. We used a bivariate random-effects model to determine summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity where meta-analysis was possible. We performed sensitivity analyses to validate the robustness of outcomes. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies (1161 participants). Five studies included only adults. Four studies included both adults and children; however, the proportion was not reported in three of these studies. The youngest child reported in the studies was aged 13 years. There was no study including only children.\nThe reference standard was pleocytosis in eight studies, and the combination of pleocytosis and increased protein in the cerebrospinal fluid in one study. Two studies also used smear or positive culture of cerebrospinal fluid.\nRisk of bias and concern about applicability was high in the participant selection domain for all included studies and the consciousness subgroup.\nOverall, pooled sensitivity was 65.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 37.3 to 85.6), and pooled specificity was 70.4% (95% CI 47.7 to 86.1) (very low-certainty evidence). We established the possibility of heterogeneity from visual inspection of forest plots. However, we were unable to conduct further analysis for study population, types of meningitis, and participants' condition, other than disturbance of consciousness (a secondary outcome).\nAmongst participants whose consciousness was undisturbed (8 studies, 921 participants), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 75.2% (95% CI 54.3 to 88.6) and 60.8% (95% CI 43.4 to 75.9), respectively (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nJolt accentuation for headache may exclude diagnoses of meningitis in emergency settings, but high-quality evidence to support use of this test is lacking. Even where jolt accentuation of headache is negative, there is still the possibility of acute meningitis. This review identified the possibility of heterogeneity. However, factors that contribute to heterogeneity are incompletely understood, and should be considered in future research.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is the diagnosis of acute meningitis by physical examination important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Meningitis is inflammation of the tissue that protects the brain and spinal cord (the meninges). Acute meningitis, especially bacterial and tubercular meningitis, is potentially life-threatening, and requires prompt diagnosis and early treatment.\nDiagnosis usually needs an analysis of cerebrospinal fluid collected by lumbar puncture. Lumbar puncture involves the insertion of a needle between the bones of the lumbar spine. Lumbar puncture is an invasive test that can cause headache.\nIf physical examination can accurately exclude the possibility of acute meningitis, patients may be able to avoid having to undergo a lumbar puncture. However, traditional physical examinations of people with suspected meningitis, such as inability to flex the neck forward (nuchal rigidity), does not exclude acute meningitis." } ]
query-laysum	7477	[ { "role": "user", "content": "Abstract: Background\nTraumatic upper limb injury is a leading cause of work-related disability. After return-to-work (RTW), many survivors of injuries are able to regain a quality of life (QoL) comparable with the normal population. Since RTW plays an important role in economic productivity and regaining health-related QoL, enhancing RTW in workers with traumatic limb injuries is the primary goal of rehabilitation. Vocational rehabilitation has been commonly employed in the field of occupational safety and health to increase the number of injured people returning to the labour market, prevent illness, increase well-being, and reduce disability.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of vocational rehabilitation programmes for enhancing RTW in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries.\nSearch methods\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2013. We updated our searches of the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 9), MEDLINE (to 30 August 2017), EMBASE (to 3 September 2017), CINAHL (to 6 September 2017), and PsycINFO (to 6 September 2017), and we handsearched the references lists of relevant review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe aimed to include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vocational rehabilitation with an alternative (control) intervention such as standard rehabilitation, a limited form of the vocational rehabilitation intervention (such as advice on RTW, referral information, or liaison with employer), or waiting-list controls.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently inspected abstracts, and we obtained full papers when necessary. When the two authors disagreed about the inclusion of a study, we resolved disagreements by discussion. A third author arbitrated when necessary.\nMain results\nOur updated search identified 466 citations. Based on assessments of their titles and abstracts, we decided to evaluate the full texts of five records; however, none met our inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no high-quality evidence to support or refute the efficacy of vocational rehabilitation for enhancing RTW in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries. Since injured people in occupational settings frequently receive vocational rehabilitation with the aim of decreasing work disability, enhancing RTW, increasing productivity, and containing the welfare cost, further high-quality RCTs assessing the efficacy of vocational rehabilitation for workers with traumatic upper limb injury are needed to fill this gap in knowledge.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n" }, { "role": "assistant", "content": "Workers who injure their fingers, hand, or arm often cannot continue working normally. In many countries law compels employers to help workers when injuries affect their work ability. This help is often referred to as vocational rehabilitation. Vocational rehabilitation refers to ways to help disabled workers return to work or to find a new job. Return-to-work can be supported by helping the injured worker cope better, by workplace adjustments, or by physical exercises. Although all these strategies are used in practice, it is still unclear which approach is best and in which circumstances. This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2013." } ]

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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