dataset
stringclasses 1
value | id
stringlengths 1
5
| messages
listlengths 2
2
|
|---|---|---|
query-laysum
|
7579
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nReduced vitamin A concentration increases the risk of blindness in children infected with the measles virus. Promoting vitamin A supplementation in children with measles contributes to the control of blindness in children, which is a high priority within the World Health Organization (WHO) VISION 2020 The Right to Sight Program.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of vitamin A in preventing blindness in children with measles without prior clinical features of vitamin A deficiency.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL 2015, Issue 11, MEDLINE (1950 to December week 3, 2015), Embase (1974 to December 2015) and LILACS (1985 to December 2015).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of vitamin A in preventing blindness in well-nourished children diagnosed with measles but with no prior clinical features of vitamin A deficiency.\nData collection and analysis\nFor the original review, two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and extracted data on reported outcomes. We contacted trial authors of the included studies for additional information on unpublished data. We included two RCTs which were clinically heterogenous. We presented the continuous outcomes reported as the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and dichotomous outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Due to marked clinical heterogeneity we considered it inappropriate to perform a meta-analysis.\nMain results\nFor the first publication of this review, two RCTs involving 260 children with measles which compared vitamin A with placebo met the inclusion criteria. Neither study reported blindness or other ocular morbidities as end points. One trial of moderate quality suggested evidence of a significant increase in serum retinol levels in the vitamin A group one week after two doses of vitamin A (MD 9.45 µg/dL, 95% CI 2.19 to 16.71; 17 participants, moderate-quality evidence), but not six weeks after three doses of vitamin A (MD 2.56 µg/dL, 95% CI -5.28 to 10.40; 39 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in weight gain six weeks (MD 0.39 kg, -0.04 to 0.82; 48 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and six months (MD 0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.12; 36 participants, moderate-quality evidence) after three doses of vitamin A.\nThe second trial found no significant difference in serum retinol levels two weeks after a single dose of vitamin A (MD 2.67 µg/dL, 95% CI -0.29 to 5.63; 155 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Percentage of undernutrition between the two groups did not differ significantly at one week (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54, 145 participants) and two weeks (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.29, 147 participants) after a single dose of vitamin A. No adverse event was reported in either study. We did not find any new RCTS for this second update.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe did not find any trials assessing whether or not vitamin A supplementation in children with measles prevents blindness, as neither study reported blindness or other ocular morbidities as end points.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to December 2015. Two doses of vitamin A given on two consecutive days to hospitalised children with measles led to an increase in the blood concentration of vitamin A after one week. However, there is a limitation in that neither of the two included studies reported blindness or other eye problems in children infected with measles. Also, no side effects of the treatment were reported in the included studies. We do not have sufficient evidence to demonstrate the benefit or otherwise of vitamin A in the prevention of blindness in children infected with measles."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7580
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nArsenic is a common environmental toxin. Exposure to arsenic (particularly its inorganic form) through contaminated food and drinking water is an important public health burden worldwide, and is associated with increased risk of neurotoxicity, congenital anomalies, cancer, and adverse neurodevelopment in children. Arsenic is excreted following methylation reactions, which are mediated by folate. Provision of folate through folic acid supplements could facilitate arsenic methylation and excretion, thereby reducing arsenic toxicity.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of provision of folic acid (through fortified foods or supplements), alone or in combination with other nutrients, in lessening the burden of arsenic-related health outcomes and reducing arsenic toxicity in arsenic-exposed populations.\nSearch methods\nIn September 2020, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other international databases, nine regional databases, and two trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing the provision of folic acid (at any dose or duration), alone or in combination with other nutrients or nutrient supplements, with no intervention, placebo, unfortified food, or the same nutrient or supplements without folic acid, in arsenic-exposed populations of all ages and genders.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included two RCTs with 822 adults exposed to arsenic-contaminated drinking water in Bangladesh. The RCTs compared 400 µg/d (FA400) or 800 µg/d (FA800) folic acid supplements, given for 12 or 24 weeks, with placebo. One RCT, a multi-armed trial, compared FA400 plus creatine (3 g/d) to creatine alone.\nWe judged both RCTs at low risk of bias in all domains. Due to differences in co-intervention, arsenic exposure, and participants' nutritional status, we could not conduct meta-analyses, and therefore, provide a narrative description of the data.\nNeither RCT reported on cancer, all-cause mortality, neurocognitive function, or congenital anomalies.\nFolic acid supplements alone versus placebo\nBlood arsenic. In arsenic-exposed individuals, FA likely reduces blood arsenic concentrations compared to placebo (2 studies, 536 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nFor folate-deficient and folate-replete participants who received arsenic-removal water filters as a co-intervention, FA800 reduced blood arsenic levels more than placebo (percentage change (%change) in geometric mean (GM) FA800 −17.8%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) −25.0 to −9.8; placebo GM −9.5%, 95% CI −16.5 to −1.8; 1 study, 406 participants).\nIn one study with 130 participants with low baseline plasma folate, FA400 reduced total blood arsenic (%change FA400 mean (M) −13.62%, standard error (SE) ± 2.87; placebo M −2.49%, SE ± 3.25), and monomethylarsonic acid (MMA) concentrations (%change FA400 M −22.24%, SE ± 2.86; placebo M −1.24%, SE ± 3.59) more than placebo. Inorganic arsenic (InAs) concentrations reduced in both groups (%change FA400 M −18.54%, SE ± 3.60; placebo M −10.61%, SE ± 3.38). There was little to no change in dimethylarsinic acid (DMA) in either group.\nUrinary arsenic. In arsenic-exposed individuals, FA likely reduces the proportion of total urinary arsenic excreted as InAs (%InAs) and MMA (%MMA) and increases the proportion excreted as DMA (%DMA) to a greater extent than placebo (2 studies, 546 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting that FA enhances arsenic methylation.\nIn a mixed folate-deficient and folate-replete population (1 study, 352 participants) receiving arsenic-removal water filters as a co-intervention, groups receiving FA had a greater decrease in %InAs (within-person change FA400 M −0.09%, 95% CI −0.17 to −0.01; FA800 M −0.14%, 95% CI −0.21 to −0.06; placebo M 0.05%, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.10), a greater decrease in %MMA (within-person change FA400 M −1.80%, 95% CI −2.53 to −1.07; FA800 M −2.60%, 95% CI −3.35 to −1.85; placebo M 0.15%, 95% CI −0.37 to 0.68), and a greater increase in %DMA (within-person change FA400 M 3.25%, 95% CI 1.81 to 4.68; FA800 M 4.57%, 95% CI 3.20 to 5.95; placebo M −1.17%, 95% CI −2.18 to −0.17), compared to placebo.\nIn 194 participants with low baseline plasma folate, FA reduced %InAs (%change FA400 M −0.31%, SE ± 0.04; placebo M −0.13%, SE ± 0.04) and %MMA (%change FA400 M −2.6%, SE ± 0.37; placebo M −0.71%, SE ± 0.43), and increased %DMA (%change FA400 M 5.9%, SE ± 0.82; placebo M 2.14%, SE ± 0.71), more than placebo.\nPlasma homocysteine: In arsenic-exposed individuals, FA400 likely reduces homocysteine concentrations to a greater extent than placebo (2 studies, 448 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), in the mixed folate-deficient and folate-replete population receiving arsenic-removal water filters as a co-intervention (%change in GM FA400 −23.4%, 95% CI −27.1 to −19.5; placebo −1.3%, 95% CI −5.3 to 3.1; 1 study, 254 participants), and participants with low baseline plasma folate (within-person change FA400 M −3.06 µmol/L, SE ± 3.51; placebo M −0.05 µmol/L, SE ± 4.31; 1 study, 194 participants).\nFA supplements plus other nutrient supplements versus nutrient supplements alone\nIn arsenic-exposed individuals who received arsenic-removal water filters as a co-intervention, FA400 plus creatine may reduce blood arsenic concentrations more than creatine alone (%change in GM FA400 + creatine −14%, 95% CI −22.2 to −5.0; creatine −7.0%, 95% CI −14.8 to 1.5; 1 study, 204 participants; low-certainty evidence); may not change urinary arsenic methylation indices (FA400 + creatine: %InAs M 13.2%, SE ± 7.0; %MMA M 10.8, SE ± 4.1; %DMA M 76, SE ± 7.8; creatine: %InAs M 14.8, SE ± 5.5; %MMA M 12.8, SE ± 4.0; %DMA M 72.4, SE ±7.6; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence); and may reduce homocysteine concentrations to a greater extent (%change in GM FA400 + creatinine −21%, 95% CI −25.2 to −16.4; creatine −4.3%, 95% CI −9.0 to 0.7; 1 study, 204 participants; low-certainty evidence) than creatine alone.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is moderate-certainty evidence that FA supplements may benefit blood arsenic concentration, urinary arsenic methylation profiles, and plasma homocysteine concentration versus placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that FA supplements plus other nutrients may benefit blood arsenic and plasma homocysteine concentrations versus nutrients alone. No studies reported on cancer, all-cause mortality, neurocognitive function, or congenital anomalies. Given the limited number of RCTs, more studies conducted in diverse settings are needed to assess the effects of FA on arsenic-related health outcomes and arsenic toxicity in arsenic-exposed adults and children.\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": "Arsenic is a common environmental toxin that affects over 140 million people worldwide. Long-term arsenic exposure, through the consumption of arsenic-contaminated drinking water and food, increases the risk of neurotoxicity (damage to the brain or nervous system), skin lesions, birth defects, cancer, and impaired brain development in children. Folic acid may decrease arsenic toxicity by helping to remove arsenic from the body, thus lowering the amount of arsenic in the blood. This review assessed the effect of giving people folic acid through oral supplements, fortified foods, or both, on arsenic-associated health outcomes and arsenic toxicity in adults and children."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7582
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDementia is a common chronic condition, mainly affecting older adults, characterised by a progressive decline in cognitive and functional abilities. Medical treatments for dementia are limited. Cannabinoids are being investigated for the treatment of dementia.\nObjectives\nTo determine the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids for the treatment of dementia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS - the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group’s Specialised Register - on 8 July 2021, using the terms cannabis or cannabinoid or endocannabinoid or cannabidiol or THC or CBD or dronabinol or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or marijuana or marihuana or hashish. The register contains records from all major healthcare databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS), as well as from many clinical trials registries and grey literature sources.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cannabinoids for the treatment of dementia. We included participants of any age and of either sex with diagnosed dementia of any subtype, or with unspecified dementia of any severity, from any setting. We considered studies of cannabinoids administered by any route, at any dose, for any duration, compared with placebo, no treatment, or any active control intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in included studies. When necessary, other review authors were involved in reaching consensus decisions. We conducted meta-analyses using a generic inverse variance fixed-effect model to derive estimates of effect size. We used GRADE methods to assess our confidence in the effect estimates.\nMain results\nWe included four studies (126 participants) in this review. Most participants had Alzheimer's disease; a few had vascular dementia or mixed dementia. Three studies had low risk of bias across all domains; one study had unclear risk of bias for the majority of domains.\nThe included studies tested natural delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (Namisol) and two types of synthetic THC analogue (dronabinol and nabilone). Three trials had a cross-over design. Interventions were applied over 3 to 14 weeks; one study reported adverse events over 70 weeks of follow-up. One trial was undertaken in the USA, one in Canada, and two in The Netherlands. Two studies reported non-commercial funding, and two studies were conducted with the support of both commercial and non-commercial funding.\nPrimary outcomes in this review were changes in global and specific cognitive function, overall behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), and adverse events.\nWe found very low-certainty evidence suggesting there may be little or no clinically important effect of a synthetic THC analogue on cognition assessed with the standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (sMMSE) (mean difference (MD) 1.1 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1 to 2.1; 1 cross-over trial, 28 participants).\nWe found low-certainty evidence suggesting there may be little or no clinically important effect of cannabinoids on overall behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (or its modified nursing home version) (MD -1.97, 95% CI -3.87 to -0.07; 1 parallel group and 2 cross-over studies, 110 participants).\nAll included studies reported data on adverse events. However, the total number of adverse events, the total numbers of mild and moderate adverse events, and the total number of serious adverse events (SAEs) were not reported in a way that permitted meta-analysis. There were no clear differences between groups in numbers of adverse events, with the exception of sedation (including lethargy), which was more frequent among participants taking nabilone (N = 17) than placebo (N = 6) (odds ratio (OR) 2.83, 95% CI 1.07 to 7.48; 1 cross-over study, 38 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence for adverse event outcomes to be low or very low due to serious concerns regarding imprecision and indirectness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on data from four small, short, and heterogeneous placebo-controlled trials, we cannot be certain whether cannabinoids have any beneficial or harmful effects on dementia. If there are benefits of cannabinoids for people with dementia, the effects may be too small to be clinically meaningful. Adequately powered, methodologically robust trials with longer follow-up are needed to properly assess the effects of cannabinoids in dementia.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What we did\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched databases of scientific studies to find studies that had to randomly decide whether people would be treated with cannabinoids or a comparator. We combined the results of included studies to estimate the effects of cannabinoids. We also assessed how well these studies were conducted and how credible their results were."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7583
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBreast cancer is the most frequently occurring malignancy and the second cause of death for cancer in women. Cancer prevention agents (CPAs) are a promising approach to reduce the burden of breast cancer. Currently, two main types of CPAs are available: selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs, such as tamoxifen and raloxifene) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs, such as exemestane and anastrozole).\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and acceptability of single CPAs for the prevention of primary breast cancer, in unaffected women, at an above-average risk of developing breast cancer.\nUsing a network meta-analysis, to rank single CPAs, based on their efficacy and acceptability (an endpoint that is defined as the inverse of CPA-related toxicity).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 17 August 2018. We handsearched reference lists to identify additional relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled women without a personal history of breast cancer but with an above-average risk of developing a tumor. Women had to be treated with a CPA and followed up to record the occurrence of breast cancer and adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and conducted risk of bias assessments of the included studies, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Outcome data included incidence of breast carcinoma (both invasive and in situ carcinoma) and adverse events (both overall and severe toxicity). We performed a conventional meta-analysis (for direct comparisons of a single CPA with placebo or a different CPA) and network meta-analysis (for indirect comparisons).\nMain results\nWe included six studies enrolling 50,927 women randomized to receive one CPA (SERMs: tamoxifen or raloxifene, or AIs: exemestane or anastrozole) or placebo. Three studies compared tamoxifen and placebo, two studies compared AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) versus placebo, and one study compared tamoxifen versus raloxifene. The risk of bias was low for all RCTs.\nFor the tamoxifen versus placebo comparison, tamoxifen likely resulted in a lower risk of developing breast cancer compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.76; 3 studies, 22,832 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, tamoxifen likely increased the risk of severe toxicity compared to placebo (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.47; 2 studies, 20,361 women; moderate-certainty evidence). In particular, women randomized to receive tamoxifen experienced a higher incidence of both endometrial carcinoma (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.38; high-certainty evidence) and thromboembolism (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.89; high-certainty evidence) compared to women who received placebo.\nFor the AIs versus placebo comparison, AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) reduced the risk of breast cancer by 53% (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63; 2 studies, 8424 women; high-certainty evidence). In terms of adverse events, AIs increased the risk of severe toxicity by 18% (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.28; 2 studies, 8352 women; high-certainty evidence). These differences were sustained especially by endocrine (e.g. hot flashes), gastrointestinal (e.g. diarrhea), and musculoskeletal (e.g. arthralgia) adverse events, while there were no differences in endometrial cancer or thromboembolism rates between AIs and placebo.\nFor the tamoxifen versus raloxifene comparison, raloxifene probably performed worse than tamoxifen in terms of breast cancer incidence reduction (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.43; 1 study, 19,490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), but its use was associated with lower toxicity rates (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; 1 study, 19,490 women; moderate-certainty evidence), particularly relating to incidence of endometrial cancer and thromboembolism.\nAn indirect comparison of treatment effects allowed us to compare the SERMs and AIs in this review. In terms of efficacy, AIs (exemestane or anastrozole) may have reduced breast cancer incidence slightly compared to tamoxifen (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.98; 5 RCTs, 31,256 women); however, the certainty of evidence was low. A lack of model convergence did not allow us to analyze toxicity data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor women with an above-average risk of developing breast cancer, CPAs can reduce the incidence of this disease. AIs appear to be more effective than SERMs (tamoxifen) in reducing the risk of developing breast cancer. AIs are not associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer and thromboembolic events. However, long-term data on toxicities from tamoxifen are available while the follow-up toxicity data on unaffected women taking AIs is relatively short. Additional data from direct comparisons are needed to fully address the issues of breast cancer prevention by risk-reducing medications, with special regards to acceptability (i.e. the benefit/harm ratio).\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "CPAs can reduce the incidence of breast cancer although at the cost of some toxicity. Aromatase inhibitors may be more effective than SERMs in reducing the risk of developing breast cancer. Aromatase inhibitors are not associated with the increased severe toxicity (i.e. cancer of the lining of the womb (endometrial cancer)) and thromboembolic events (blood clots)) that characterize the use of tamoxifen (although the lack of long-term data on aromatase inhibitors in unaffected women do not allow us to draw definitive conclusions). Additional data are needed to fully address the issues of breast cancer prevention by risk-reducing medicines, with emphasis on collecting information on side effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7584
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStress urinary incontinence constitutes a significant health and economic burden to society. Traditional suburethral slings are surgical operations used to treat women with symptoms of stress urinary incontinence.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of traditional suburethral sling procedures for treating stress urinary incontinence in women; and summarise the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), as well as MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP); we handsearched journals and conference proceedings (searched 27 February 2017) and the reference lists of relevant articles. On 23 January 2019, we updated this search; as a result, several additional reports of studies are awaiting classification.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised trials that assessed traditional suburethral slings for treating stress or mixed urinary incontinence.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently extracted data from included trials and assessed risk of bias. When appropriate, a summary statistic was calculated: risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, odds ratio (OR) for continence and cure rates that were expected to be high, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We adopted the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.\nMain results\nA total of 34 trials involving 3244 women were included. Traditional slings were compared with 10 other treatments and with each other.\nWe did not identify any trials comparing suburethral slings with no treatment or sham treatment, conservative management, anterior repair, or laparoscopic retropubic colposuspension. Most trials did not distinguish between women having surgery for primary or recurrent incontinence. One trial compared traditional slings with bladder neck needle suspension, and another trial compared traditional slings with single-incision slings. Both trials were too small to be informative.\nTraditional suburethral sling operation versus drugs\nOne small trial compared traditional suburethral sling operations with oxybutynin to treat women with mixed urinary incontinence. This trial did not report any of our GRADE-specific outcomes. It is uncertain whether surgery compared with oxybutynin leads to more women being dry (83% vs 0%; OR 195.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.91 to 3871.03) or having less urgency urinary incontinence (13% vs 43%; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.94) because the quality of this evidence is very low.\nTraditional suburethral sling versus injectables\nOne small trial compared traditional slings with suburethral injectable treatment. The impact of surgery versus injectables is uncertain in terms of the number of continent women (100% were dry with a traditional sling versus 71% with the injectable after the first year; OR 11.57, 95% CI 0.56 to 239.74), the need for repeat surgery for urinary incontinence (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.36) or the occurrence of perioperative complications (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.29 to 8.49), as the quality of evidence is very low.\nTraditional suburethral sling versus open abdominal retropubic colposuspension\nEight trials compared slings with open abdominal retropubic colposuspension. Moderate-quality evidence shows that the traditional suburethral sling probably leads to more continent women in the medium term (one to five years) (69% vs 59% after colposuspension: OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.37). High-quality evidence shows that women were less likely to need repeat continence surgery after a traditional sling operation than after colposuspension (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.42). We found no evidence of a difference in perioperative complications between the two groups, but the CI was very wide and the quality of evidence was very low (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.86).\nTraditional suburethral sling operation versus mid-urethral slings\nFourteen trials compared traditional sling operations and mid-urethral sling operations. Depending on judgements about what constitutes a clinically important difference between interventions with regard to continence, traditional suburethral slings are probably no better, and may be less effective, than mid-urethral slings in terms of number of women continent in the medium term (one to five years) (67% vs 74%; OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.02; n = 458; moderate-quality evidence). One trial reported more continent women with the traditional sling after 10 years (51% vs 32%: OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 4.61). Mid-urethral slings may be associated with fewer perioperative complications (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.60; low-quality evidence).\nOne type of traditional sling operation versus another type of traditional sling operation\nNine trials compared one type of traditional sling operation with another. The different types of traditional slings, along with the number of different materials used, mean that trial results could not be pooled due to clinical heterogeneity. Complications were reported by two trials - one comparing non-absorbable Goretex with a rectus fascia sling, and the second comparing Pelvicol with a rectus fascial sling. The impact was uncertain due to the very low quality of evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-quality evidence suggests that women may be more likely to be continent in the medium term (one to five years) after a traditional suburethral sling operation than after colposuspension. It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in urinary incontinence after a traditional suburethral sling compared with a mid-urethral sling in the medium term. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution, as long-term follow-up data were not available from most trials. Long-term follow-up of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing traditional slings with colposuspension and mid-urethral slings is essential. Evidence is insufficient to suggest whether traditional suburethral slings may be better or worse than other management techniques. This review is confined to RCTs and therefore may not identify all of the adverse effects that may be associated with these procedures.\nA brief economic commentary (BEC) identified three eligible economic evaluations, which are not directly comparable due to differences in methods, time horizons, and settings. End users of this review will need to assess the extent to which methods and results of identified economic evaluations may be applicable (or transferable) to their own setting.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Authors' conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Some evidence suggests that women had less leakage with traditional slings in the medium term (one to five years) compared with those undergoing colposuspension (a major abdominal operation), and fewer needed repeat surgery in one trial. Evidence on comparison of traditional suburethral slings with other treatments is insufficient. Three eligible economic evaluations reported similar results, but they are not directly comparable because of differences in their methods. This review is confined to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and therefore may not identify all of the adverse effects that may be associated with these procedures."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7585
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCorticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of idiopathic facial paralysis (Bell's palsy), but the effectiveness of additional treatment with an antiviral agent is uncertain. This review was first published in 2001 and most recently updated in 2015. Since a significant benefit of corticosteroids for the early management of Bell's palsy has been demonstrated, the main focus of this update, as in the previous version, was to determine the effect of adding antivirals to corticosteroid treatment. We undertook this update to integrate additional evidence and to better assess the robustness of findings, taking risk of bias fully into account.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of antiviral treatments alone or in combination with any other therapy for Bell's palsy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS in July 2019. We reviewed the bibliographies of the identified trials and contacted trial authors to identify additional published or unpublished data. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antivirals with and without corticosteroids versus control therapies for the treatment of Bell's palsy. We excluded trials that followed-up participants for less than three months.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently assessed trials for relevance, eligibility, and risk of bias, using standard Cochrane procedures. We performed sensitivity analyses excluding trials at high or unclear risk of bias in at least five domains, and reported these data as the primary analyses.\nMain results\nFourteen trials, including 2488 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Most were small, and most were at high or unclear risk of bias in multiple domains. We included four new studies at this update.\nIncomplete recovery\nA combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in people with Bell's palsy compared to corticosteroids alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.74; 3 trials, N = 766; random-effects; low-certainty evidence). We excluded 10 trials that were at high or unclear risk of bias in several domains from this analysis and limited all analyses to studies at lower risk of bias. Recovery rates were better in participants receiving corticosteroids alone than antivirals alone (RR 2.69, 95% CI 0.73 to 10.01; 2 trials, N = 667; random-effects), but the result was imprecise and allowed for the possibility of no effect. The rate of incomplete recovery was lower with antivirals plus corticosteroids than with placebo or no treatment (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.76; 2 trials, N = 658; random-effects). Antivirals alone had no clear effect on incomplete recovery rates compared with placebo, but the result was imprecise (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.40; 2 trials, N = 658; fixed-effect). For people with severe Bell's palsy (House-Brackmann score of 5 and 6, or equivalent on other scales), we found that the combination of antivirals and corticosteroids had no clear effect on incomplete recovery at month six compared to corticosteroids alone, although the result was again imprecise (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 2 trials, N = 98; random-effects).\nMotor synkinesis or crocodile tears\nAntivirals plus corticosteroids reduced the proportion of participants who experienced these long-term sequelae from Bell's palsy compared to placebo plus corticosteroids (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87; 2 trials, N = 469; fixed-effect; moderate-certainty evidence). Antivirals plus corticosteroids reduced long-term sequelae compared to placebo but there was no clear difference in this outcome with antivirals alone compared to placebo.\nAdverse events\nAdverse event data were available in four studies providing data on 1592 participants. None of the four comparisons showed clear differences in adverse events between treatment and comparison arms (very low-certainty evidence); for the comparison of antivirals plus corticosteroids and corticosteroids alone in studies at lower risk of bias, the RR was 1.17 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.69; 2 trials, N = 656; fixed-effect; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe combination of antivirals and corticosteroids may have little or no effect on rates of incomplete recovery in comparison to corticosteroids alone in Bell's palsy of various degrees of severity, or in people with severe Bell's palsy, but the results were very imprecise. Corticosteroids alone were probably more effective than antivirals alone and antivirals plus corticosteroids were more effective than placebo or no treatment. There was no clear benefit from antivirals alone over placebo.\nThe combination of antivirals and corticosteroids probably reduced the late sequelae of Bell's palsy compared with corticosteroids alone. Studies also showed fewer episodes of long-term sequelae in corticosteroid-treated participants than antiviral-treated participants.\nWe found no clear difference in adverse events from the use of antivirals compared with either placebo or corticosteroids, but the evidence is too uncertain for us to draw conclusions.\nAn adequately powered RCT in people with Bell’s palsy that compares different antiviral agents may be indicated.\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": "Bell's palsy is a disease of the facial nerve that causes one side of the face to be paralysed. Some studies have suggested that it is caused by the same viral infections that cause cold sores or shingles and investigated the effect of antiviral therapy. Earlier versions of this review have found that antivirals alone are not helpful compared to a dummy pill, and are less effective than corticosteroids alone. However, studies of antiviral treatment in combination with corticosteroids have conflicting results."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7586
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAlcohol use disorder (AUD) is one of the most widespread psychiatric disorders leading to detrimental consequences to people with this disorder and others. Worldwide, the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking (30-day prevalence of at least one occasion of 60 g of pure alcohol intake among current drinkers) is estimated at 20% and the prevalence of AUD at 5% of the adult general population, with highest prevalence in Europe and North America. Therapeutic approaches, including pharmacotherapy, play an important role in treating people with AUD.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of baclofen on achieving and maintaining abstinence or reducing alcohol consumption in people with AUD compared to placebo, no treatment or any other pharmacological relapse prevention treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 22 November 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least four weeks' treatment duration and 12 weeks' overall study duration comparing baclofen for AUD treatment with placebo, no treatment or other treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. relapse, 2. frequency of use, 3. amount of use, 4. adverse events, 5. dropouts from treatment and 6. dropouts from treatment due to adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 7. craving, 8. anxiety, 9. depression and 10. frequency of most relevant adverse events.\nMain results\nWe included 17 RCTs (1818 participants) with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition or International Classification of Diseases 10th edition criteria. Mean age was 46.5 years and 70% were men. Ten studies compared baclofen to placebo or another medication; seven compared two baclofen doses to placebo or another medication. Globally, 15 studies compared baclofen to placebo, two baclofen to acamprosate and two baclofen to naltrexone. In 16 studies, participants received psychosocial treatments.\nWe judged most studies at low risk of selection, performance, detection (subjective outcome), attrition and reporting bias.\nTen studies detoxified participants before treatment; in seven studies, participants were still drinking at the beginning of treatment. Treatment duration was 12 weeks for 15 RCTs and longer in two studies. Baclofen daily dose was 30 mg to 300 mg: 10 RCTs used low doses (30 mg or less); eight RCTs medium doses (above 30 and 100 mg or less) and four RCTs high doses (above 100 mg).\nCompared to placebo, moderate-certainty evidence found that baclofen probably decreases the risk to relapse (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.99; 12 studies, 1057 participants). This result was confirmed among detoxified participants but not among other subgroups of participants.\nHigh-certainty evidence found that baclofen increases the percentage of days abstinent (mean difference (MD) 9.07, 95% CI 3.30 to 14.85; 16 studies, 1273 participants). This result was confirmed among all subgroups of participants except non-detoxified or those who received medium doses.\nThere was no difference between baclofen and placebo in the other primary outcomes: heavy drinking days (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.18, 95% CI −0.48 to 0.11; 13 studies, 840 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of drinks per drinking days (MD −0.45, 95% CI −1.20 to 0.30; 9 studies, 392 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.11; 10 studies, 738 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03; 17 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.18; 16 studies, 1499 participants; high-certainty evidence). These results were confirmed by subgroup analyses except than for the dropouts that resulted lower among participants who received high doses of baclofen and studies longer than 12 weeks.\nCompared to placebo, there was no difference in craving (SMD −0.16, 95% CI −0.37 to 0.04; 17 studies, 1275 participants), anxiety (MD −0.01, 95% CI −0.14 to 0.11; 15 studies, 1123 participants) and depression (SMD 0.07, 95% CI −0.12 to 0.27; 11 studies, 1029 participants).\nConcerning the specific adverse events, baclofen increases fatigue, dizziness, somnolence/sedation, dry mouth, paraesthesia and muscle spasms/rigidity. There was no difference in the other adverse events.\nCompared to acamprosate, one study (60 participants) found no differences in any outcomes but the evidence was very uncertain: relapse (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20; very low-certainty evidence); number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.69; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence); dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-certainty evidence) and craving (MD 5.80, 95% CI −11.84 to 23.44); and all the adverse events evaluated.\nCompared to naltrexone, baclofen may increase the risk of relapse (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.12 to 5.56; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and decrease the number of participants with at least one adverse event (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.80; 2 studies, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain. One study (60 participants) found no difference between baclofen and naltrexone in the dropouts at the end of treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10; very low-certainty evidence), craving (MD 2.08, 95% CI −3.71 to 7.87), and all the adverse events evaluated.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBaclofen likely reduces the risk of relapse to any drinking and increases the percentage of abstinent days, mainly among detoxified participants. It does not increase the number of participants with at least one adverse event, those who dropout for any reason or due to adverse events. It probably does not reduce number of heavy drinking days and the number of drinks per drinking days. Current evidence suggests that baclofen may help people with AUD in maintaining abstinence. The results of comparisons of baclofen with acamprosate and naltrexone were mainly based on only one study.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review methods\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for randomised controlled trials (studies where people were allocated at random to one of two or more treatments or control groups) evaluating the effect of baclofen in reducing alcohol consumption or in achieving and maintaining abstinence (or both) when compared to placebo (inactive medication) or other medications. We pooled similar studies and evaluated the effects dividing the studies according to the doses of baclofen, duration of treatment, and alcohol consumption and the beginning of treatment (i.e. into detoxified or non-detoxified participants on the basis if they were abstinent or were still drinking at the beginning of treatment)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7587
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of the Cochrane review \"Teriflunomide for multiple sclerosis\" (first published in The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12).\nMultiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune-mediated disease of the central nervous system. It is clinically characterized by recurrent relapses or progression, or both, often leading to severe neurological disability and a serious decline in quality of life. Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS aim to prevent occurrence of relapses and disability progression. Teriflunomide is a pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor approved by both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a DMT for adults with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS).\nObjectives\nTo assess the absolute and comparative effectiveness and safety of teriflunomide as monotherapy or combination therapy versus placebo or other disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) (interferon beta (IFNβ), glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, alemtuzumab) for modifying the disease course in people with MS.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group Specialised Trials Register (30 September 2015). We checked reference lists of published reviews and retrieved articles and searched reports (2004 to September 2015) from the MS societies in Europe and America. We also communicated with investigators participating in trials of teriflunomide and the pharmaceutical company, Sanofi-Aventis.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trials with a length of follow-up of one year or greater evaluating teriflunomide, as monotherapy or combination therapy, versus placebo or other approved DMDs for people with MS without restrictions regarding dose, administration frequency and duration of treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures of Cochrane. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus among the review authors. We contacted the principal investigators of included studies for additional data or confirmation of data.\nMain results\nFive studies involving 3231 people evaluated the efficacy and safety of teriflunomide 7 mg and 14 mg, alone or with add-on IFNβ, versus placebo or IFNβ-1a for adults with relapsing forms of MS and an entry Expanded Disability Status Scale score of less than 5.5.\nOverall, there were obvious clinical heterogeneities due to diversities in study designs or interventions and methodological heterogeneities across studies. All studies had a high risk of detection bias for relapse assessment and a high risk of bias due to conflicts of interest. Among them, three studies additionally had a high risk of attrition bias due to a high dropout rate and two studies had an unclear risk of attrition bias. The studies of combination therapy with IFNβ (650 participants) and the study with IFNβ-1a as controls (324 participants) also had a high risk for performance bias and a lack of power due to the limited sample.\nTwo studies evaluated the benefit and the safety of teriflunomide as monotherapy versus placebo over a period of one year (1169 participants) or two years (1088 participants). A meta-analysis was not conducted. Compared to placebo, administration of teriflunomide at a dose of 7 mg/day or 14 mg/day as monotherapy reduced the number of participants with at least one relapse over one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.87, P value = 0.001 with 7 mg/day and RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75, P value < 0.00001 with 14 mg/day) or two years (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98, P value = 0.03 with 7 mg/day and RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93, P value = 0.004 with 14 days). Only teriflunomide at a dose of 14 mg/day reduced the number of participants with disability progression over one year (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84, P value = 0.006) or two years (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96, P value = 0.02). When taking the effect of drop-outs into consideration, the likely-case scenario analyses still showed a benefit in reducing the number of participants with at least one relapse, but not for the number of participants with disability progression. Both doses also reduced the annualized relapse rate and the number of gadolinium-enhancing T1-weighted lesions over two years. Quality of evidence for relapse outcomes at one year or at two years was low, while for disability progression at one year or at two years was very low.\nWhen compared to IFNβ-1a, teriflunomide at a dose of 14 mg/day had a similar efficacy to IFNβ-1a in reducing the proportion of participants with at least one relapse over one year, while teriflunomide at a dose of 7 mg/day was inferior to IFNβ-1a (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.67, P value = 0.14; 215 participants with 14 mg/day and RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.66 to 4.53, P value < 0.0001; 213 participants with 7 mg/day). However, the quality of evidence was very low.\nIn terms of safety profile, the most common adverse events associated with teriflunomide were diarrhoea, nausea, hair thinning, elevated alanine aminotransferase, neutropenia and lymphopenia. These adverse events had a dose-related effects and rarely led to treatment discontinuation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was low-quality evidence to support that teriflunomide at a dose of 7 mg/day or 14 mg/day as monotherapy reduces both the number of participants with at least one relapse and the annualized relapse rate over one year or two years of treatment in comparison with placebo. Only teriflunomide at a dose of 14 mg/day reduced the number of participants with disability progression and delayed the progression of disability over one year or two years, but the quality of the evidence was very low. The quality of available data was too low to evaluate the benefit teriflunomide as monotherapy versus IFNβ-1a or as combination therapy with IFNβ. The common adverse effects were diarrhoea, nausea, hair thinning, elevated alanine aminotransferase, neutropenia and lymphopenia. These adverse effects were mostly mild-to-moderate in severity, but had a dose-related effect. New studies of high quality and longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the comparative benefit of teriflunomide on these outcomes and the safety in comparison with other DMTs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Objectives\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "To assess the effectiveness and safety of two different doses of teriflunomide, alone or in combination with other medicines, for modifying the course of MS in people with the relapsing forms, with or without progression."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7588
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCurrent and expected problems such as ageing, increased prevalence of chronic conditions and multi-morbidity, increased emphasis on healthy lifestyle and prevention, and substitution for care from hospitals by care provided in the community encourage countries worldwide to develop new models of primary care delivery. Owing to the fact that many tasks do not necessarily require the knowledge and skills of a doctor, interest in using nurses to expand the capacity of the primary care workforce is increasing. Substitution of nurses for doctors is one strategy used to improve access, efficiency, and quality of care. This is the first update of the Cochrane review published in 2005.\nObjectives\nOur aim was to investigate the impact of nurses working as substitutes for primary care doctors on:\n• patient outcomes;\n• processes of care; and\n• utilisation, including volume and cost.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), part of the Cochrane Library (www.cochranelibrary.com), as well as MEDLINE, Ovid, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and EbscoHost (searched 20.01.2015). We searched for grey literature in the Grey Literature Report and OpenGrey (21.02.2017), and we searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries (21.02.2017). We did a cited reference search for relevant studies (searched 27.01 2015) and checked reference lists of all included studies. We reran slightly revised strategies, limited to publication years between 2015 and 2017, for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and CINAHL, in March 2017, and we have added one trial to ‘Studies awaiting classification’.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials evaluating the outcomes of nurses working as substitutes for doctors. The review is limited to primary healthcare services that provide first contact and ongoing care for patients with all types of health problems, excluding mental health problems. Studies which evaluated nurses supplementing the work of primary care doctors were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias of included studies. When feasible, we combined study results and determined an overall estimate of the effect. We evaluated other outcomes by completing a structured synthesis.\nMain results\nFor this review, we identified 18 randomised trials evaluating the impact of nurses working as substitutes for doctors. One study was conducted in a middle-income country, and all other studies in high-income countries. The nursing level was often unclear or varied between and even within studies. The studies looked at nurses involved in first contact care (including urgent care), ongoing care for physical complaints, and follow-up of patients with a particular chronic conditions such as diabetes. In many of the studies, nurses could get additional support or advice from a doctor. Nurse-doctor substitution for preventive services and health education in primary care has been less well studied.\nStudy findings suggest that care delivered by nurses, compared to care delivered by doctors, probably generates similar or better health outcomes for a broad range of patient conditions (low- or moderate-certainty evidence):\n• Nurse-led primary care may lead to slightly fewer deaths among certain groups of patients, compared to doctor-led care. However, the results vary and it is possible that nurse-led primary care makes little or no difference to the number of deaths (low-certainty evidence).\n• Blood pressure outcomes are probably slightly improved in nurse-led primary care. Other clinical or health status outcomes are probably similar (moderate-certainty evidence).\n• Patient satisfaction is probably slightly higher in nurse-led primary care (moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life may be slightly higher (low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain of the effects of nurse-led care on process of care because the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low.\nThe effect of nurse-led care on utilisation of care is mixed and depends on the type of outcome. Consultations are probably longer in nurse-led primary care (moderate-certainty evidence), and numbers of attended return visits are slightly higher for nurses than for doctors (high-certainty evidence). We found little or no difference between nurses and doctors in the number of prescriptions and attendance at accident and emergency units (high-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in the number of tests and investigations, hospital referrals and hospital admissions between nurses and doctors (low-certainty evidence).\nWe are uncertain of the effects of nurse-led care on the costs of care because the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review shows that for some ongoing and urgent physical complaints and for chronic conditions, trained nurses, such as nurse practitioners, practice nurses, and registered nurses, probably provide equal or possibly even better quality of care compared to primary care doctors, and probably achieve equal or better health outcomes for patients. Nurses probably achieve higher levels of patient satisfaction, compared to primary care doctors. Furthermore, consultation length is probably longer when nurses deliver care and the frequency of attended return visits is probably slightly higher for nurses, compared to doctors. Other utilisation outcomes are probably the same. The effects of nurse-led care on process of care and the costs of care are uncertain, and we also cannot ascertain what level of nursing education leads to the best outcomes when nurses are substituted for doctors.\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 2017."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7589
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSalvage systemic therapy has become the new standard of care in patients with advanced gastric and oesophago-gastric junction (OGJ) adenocarcinoma, following disease progression on first-line fluoropyrimidine and platinum-containing chemotherapy. Pharmacological agents proven to be effective in this setting include both chemotherapy and biological therapy, however, the consensus on the best salvage systemic therapy has not been reached.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of systemic chemotherapy and biological therapy, either alone or in combination, on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced gastric and OGJ adenocarcinoma, whose disease has progressed on, or relapsed after first-line fluoropyrimidine and platinum-containing chemotherapy. Adverse events (AEs), tumour response rate (TRR) and quality of life (QoL) associated with systemic chemotherapy and/or biological therapy were additionally assessed.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, trial registries and proceedings of the major oncology conferences up to October 2020. We additionally handsearched the reference lists of studies. No language restriction was applied.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing salvage systemic therapy (chemotherapy and/or biological therapy) and either another type of salvage systemic therapy, placebo, best supportive care (BSC) or no treatment in patients with gastric and OGJ adenocarcinoma refractory to first-line fluoropyrimidine and platinum-containing chemotherapy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed selection of eligible studies and the primary author extracted study characteristics and outcome data from included studies. We assessed the quality and risk of bias of eligible studies according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We expressed pooled estimates of effect using hazard ratio (HR) calculated using an inverse variance random-effects model for time-to-event data, and risk ratio (RR) calculated using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model for binary data. The certainty of evidence was graded using GRADEpro.\nMain results\nWe identified 17 RCTs with 5110 participants for inclusion in this review. Tweenty-nine studies are ongoing and twenty studies are awaiting classification. No studies examined the following comparisons: chemotherapy combined with biological therapy versus placebo, BSC or no treatment, chemotherapy combined with biological therapy versus biological therapy, biological therapy versus biological therapy and chemotherapy combined with biological therapy versus chemotherapy combined with biological therapy.\nChemotherapy versus placebo, best supportive care or no treatment\nChemotherapy probably improves OS (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.83, moderate-certainty evidence) based on two studies involving 547 participants and improves PFS (HR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.69, high-certainty evidence) based on one study involving 507 participants over placebo and BSC. Chemotherapy probably increases serious AEs (SAEs) (RR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.59, moderate-certainty evidence) based on one study involving 503 participants.\nBiological therapy versus placebo, best supportive care or no treatment\nBiological therapy improves OS (HR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.73, high-certainty evidence) and probably improves PFS (HR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.57, moderate-certainty evidence) over placebo based on three studies involving 781 participants. There is currently insufficient evidence for increased SAEs from biological therapy (RR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.37, low-certainty evidence) based on two studies involving 638 participants.\nChemotherapy versus biological therapy\nThis comparison only considered immunotherapy. There is probably no evidence of a difference for OS (HR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02, moderate-certainty evidence) between chemotherapy and immunotherapy, and immunotherapy probably reduces PFS (HR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.57, moderate-certainty evidence) based on one study involving 395 participants. SAEs may be less frequent with immunotherapy compared to chemotherapy (RR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.57, low-certainty evidence).\nChemotherapy combined with biological therapy versus chemotherapy\nAddition of biological therapy to chemotherapy probably does not improve OS (HR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.04, moderate-certainty evidence) and we are uncertain whether it improves PFS (HR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.02, very low-certainty evidence) based on seven studies involving 2743 participants. We are similarly uncertain whether combined chemotherapy and biological therapy increases SAEs (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44, very low-certainty evidence) based on four studies involving 1618 participants.\nChemotherapy versus chemotherapy\nThere is no evidence of a difference for OS and PFS between irinotecan and paclitaxel (HR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.48, low-certainty evidence for OS; HR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.48, low-certainty evidence for PFS) based on one study involving 219 participants. Similarly, there is no evidence to indicate improved OS and PFS from addition of another chemotherapy to docetaxel (HR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.54, low-certainty evidence for OS; HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.09, low-certainty evidence for PFS) based on two studies involving 121 participants. Grade ≥ 3 neutropenia occurred commonly with both mono- and poly-chemotherapy except for docetaxel-S1 and EOX chemotherapy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSurvival outcome of patients with advanced gastric and OGJ adenocarcinoma whose disease progressed on first-line fluoropyrimidine and platinum-containing chemotherapy can be improved by chemotherapy and biological therapy. Biological therapy, in particular, achieves this without clear increase in SAEs or QoL impairment. Whether biological therapy is preferred over chemotherapy is still unclear and there is no evidence of a difference for OS outcome, although immunotherapy may be associated with less SAEs. Addition of biological therapy to chemotherapy and poly-chemotherapy are associated with frequent treatment-related toxicity without clear survival benefit.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What we found\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 17 studies in 5110 people with advanced stomach or OGJ cancer. Studies compared further chemotherapy and/or biological therapies, given by mouth or through the bloodstream (systemic), with:\n• another systemic chemotherapy and/or biological therapy;\n• a placebo ('dummy' treatment);\n• best supportive care; and\n• no treatment.\nThe studies looked at:\n• how long people lived;\n• any adverse (unwanted) effects; and\n• their quality of life (well-being)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7590
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the first update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. Renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors include angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and renin inhibitors. They are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for people with diabetes because of postulated advantages for reducing diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use for hypertension, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in people with hypertension.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least six months follow-up in people with elevated blood pressure (≥ 130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis.\nMain results\nThis update includes three new RCTs, totaling 45 in all, involving 66,625 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large RCTs at low risk for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.\nPrimary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalizations, total cardiovascular (CV) events (fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalization), and end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).\nCompared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.90, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.2%), and that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, absolute risk increase (ARI) 0.7%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs did not differ for all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09); total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02); and total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05).\nCompared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line thiazides did not differ for all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07); total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11); and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37).\nCompared with first-line beta-blockers, low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line beta-blockers did not differ for all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01); HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18); and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27).\nBlood pressure comparisons between first-line RAS inhibitors and other first-line classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.\nThere is no information about non-fatal serious adverse events, as none of the trials reported this outcome.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAll-cause death is similar for first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs, thiazides and beta-blockers. There are, however, differences for some morbidity outcomes. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. First-line CCBs increased HF but decreased stroke compared to first-line RAS inhibitors. The magnitude of the increase in HF exceeded the decrease in stroke. Low-quality evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors reduced stroke and total CV events compared to first-line beta-blockers. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.\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 determined how RAS (renin angiotensin system) inhibitors compared as first-line medicines for treating hypertension with other types of first-line medicines (thiazide diuretics, beta-blockers, CCBs, alpha-blockers, or central nervous system (CNS) active drugs) for hypertension."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7591
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAffordable, feasible and efficacious interventions to reduce neonatal infections and improve neonatal survival are needed. Chlorhexidine, a broad spectrum topical antiseptic agent, is active against aerobic and anaerobic organisms and reduces neonatal bacterial colonisation and may reduce infection.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of neonatal skin or cord care with chlorhexidine versus routine care or no treatment for prevention of infections in late preterm or term newborn infants in hospital and community settings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, latest issue of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966 to November 2013), EMBASE (1980 to November 2013), and CINAHL (1982 to November 2013). Ongoing trials were detected by searching the following databases: www.clinicaltrials.gov and www.controlled-trials.com.\nSelection criteria\nCluster and individual patient randomised controlled trials of chlorhexidine use (for skin care, or cord care, or both) in term or late preterm neonates in hospital and community settings were eligible for inclusion. Three authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data, and assessed study risk of bias. The quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using GRADE. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and presented results using GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included 12 trials in this review. There were seven hospital-based and five community-based studies. In four studies maternal vaginal wash with chlorhexidine was done in addition to neonatal skin and cord care.\nNewborn skin or cord cleansing with chlorhexidine compared to usual care in hospitals\nLow-quality evidence from one trial showed that chlorhexidine cord cleansing compared to dry cord care may lead to no difference in neonatal mortality (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.04). Moderate-quality evidence from two trials showed that chlorhexidine cord cleansing compared to dry cord care probably reduces the risk of omphalitis/infections (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.84).\nLow-quality evidence from two trials showed that chlorhexidine skin cleansing compared to dry cord care may lead to no difference in omphalitis/infections (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.39). None of the studies in this comparison reported effects of the treatments on neonatal mortality.\nNewborn skin or cord cleansing with chlorhexidine compared to usual care in the community\nHigh-quality evidence from three trials showed that chlorhexidine cord cleansing compared to dry cord care reduces neonatal mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92) and omphalitis/infections (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.57).\nHigh-quality evidence from one trial showed no difference between chlorhexidine skin cleansing and usual skin care on neonatal mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.23). None of the studies in this comparison reported effects of the treatments on omphalitis/infections.\nMaternal vaginal chlorhexidine in addition to total body cleansing compared to no intervention (sterile saline solution) in hospitals\nModerate-quality evidence from one trial showed no difference between maternal vaginal chlorhexidine in addition to total body cleansing and no intervention on neonatal mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42). High-quality evidence from two trials showed no difference between maternal vaginal chlorhexidine in addition to total body cleansing and no intervention on the risk of infections (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16).\nFindings from one trial showed that maternal vaginal cleansing in addition to total body cleansing results in increased risk of hypothermia (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.49).\nMaternal vaginal chlorhexidine in addition to total body cleansing compared to no intervention (sterile saline solution) in the community\nLow-quality evidence from one trial showed no difference between maternal vaginal chlorhexidine in addition to total body cleansing and no intervention on neonatal mortality (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.03). Moderate-quality evidence from one trial showed that maternal vaginal chlorhexidine in addition to total body cleansing compared to no intervention probably reduces the risk of neonatal infections (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.95). These studies did not report effect on omphalitis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is some uncertainty as to the effect of chlorhexidine applied to the umbilical cords of newborns in hospital settings on neonatal mortality. The quality of evidence for the effects on infection are moderate for cord application and low for application to skin. There is high-quality evidence that chlorhexidine skin or cord care in the community setting results in a 50% reduction in the incidence of omphalitis and a 12% reduction in neonatal mortality. Maternal vaginal chlorhexidine compared to usual care probably leads to no difference in neonatal mortality in hospital settings. Maternal vaginal chlorhexidine compared to usual care results in no difference in the risk of infections in hospital settings. The uncertainty over the effect of maternal vaginal chlorhexidine on mortality outcomes reflects small sample sizes and low event rates in the community settings.\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": "Infections are the single most important cause of neonatal deaths worldwide and are responsible for almost a third of all neonatal mortality. Affordable, feasible and efficacious interventions to reduce neonatal infections and improved neonatal survival are needed. Chlorhexidine, a broad spectrum antiseptic agent, is active against common organisms causing perinatal infections. Use of chlorhexidine on neonatal skin or cord, or both, for prevention of infection is a possible strategy to improve neonatal survival. In this review we assessed the effects of neonatal skin or cord care with chlorhexidine compared to routine care or no treatment on neonatal survival and infections in newborn infants born in the hospital or community."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7592
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPersistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD) is a chronic balance disorder, which is characterised by subjective unsteadiness or dizziness that is worse on standing and with visual stimulation. The condition was only recently defined and therefore the prevalence is currently unknown. However, it is likely to include a considerable number of people with chronic balance problems. The symptoms can be debilitating and have a profound impact on quality of life. At present, little is known about the optimal way to treat this condition. A variety of medications may be used, as well as other treatments, such as vestibular rehabilitation.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD).\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 21 November 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with PPPD, which compared selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies that did not use the Bárány Society criteria to diagnose PPPD and studies that followed up participants for less than three months.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) generic health-related quality of life and 6) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe identified no studies that met our inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAt present, there is no evidence from placebo-controlled randomised trials regarding pharmacological treatments - specifically SSRIs and SNRIs - for PPPD. Consequently, there is great uncertainty over the use of these treatments for this condition. Further work is needed to establish whether any treatments are effective at improving the symptoms of PPPD, and whether their use is associated with any adverse effects.\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": "Further research is needed to identify whether these medications are useful for the treatment of PPPD."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7593
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMeningococcal disease can lead to death or disability within hours after onset. Pre-admission antibiotics aim to reduce the risk of serious disease and death by preventing delays in starting therapy before confirmation of the diagnosis.\nObjectives\nTo study the effectiveness and safety of pre-admission antibiotics versus no pre-admission antibiotics or placebo, and different pre-admission antibiotic regimens in decreasing mortality, clinical failure, and morbidity in people suspected of meningococcal disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (6 January 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to 6 January 2017), Embase (1980 to 6 January 2017), Web of Science (1985 to 6 January 2017), LILACS (1982 to 6 January 2017), and prospective trial registries to January 2017. We previously searched CAB Abstracts from 1985 to June 2015, but did not update this search in January 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing antibiotics versus placebo or no intervention, in people with suspected meningococcal infection, or different antibiotics administered before admission to hospital or confirmation of the diagnosis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data from the search results. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous data. We included only one trial and so did not perform data synthesis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe found no RCTs comparing pre-admission antibiotics versus no pre-admission antibiotics or placebo. We included one open-label, non-inferiority RCT with 510 participants, conducted during an epidemic in Niger, evaluating a single dose of intramuscular ceftriaxone versus a single dose of intramuscular long-acting (oily) chloramphenicol. Ceftriaxone was not inferior to chloramphenicol in reducing mortality (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.56; N = 503; 308 confirmed meningococcal meningitis; 26 deaths; moderate-quality evidence), clinical failures (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.15; N = 477; 18 clinical failures; moderate-quality evidence), or neurological sequelae (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.62; N = 477; 29 with sequelae; low-quality evidence). No adverse effects of treatment were reported. Estimated treatment costs were similar. No data were available on disease burden due to sequelae.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no reliable evidence to support the use pre-admission antibiotics for suspected cases of non-severe meningococcal disease. Moderate-quality evidence from one RCT indicated that single intramuscular injections of ceftriaxone and long-acting chloramphenicol were equally effective, safe, and economical in reducing serious outcomes. The choice between these antibiotics should be based on affordability, availability, and patterns of antibiotic resistance.\nFurther RCTs comparing different pre-admission antibiotics, accompanied by intensive supportive measures, are ethically justified in people with less severe illness, and are needed to provide reliable evidence in different clinical settings.\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 the number of people who died, did not respond to treatment, or with neurological disabilities with either antibiotic empirically. The results were similar in whom the diagnosis was subsequently confirmed. Neither antibiotic had significant adverse effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7594
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a major problem in children and adolescents, characterised by age-inappropriate levels of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, and is associated with long-term social, academic, and mental health problems. The stimulant medications methylphenidate and amphetamine are the most frequently used treatments for ADHD, but these are not always effective and can be associated with side effects. Clinical and biochemical evidence suggests that deficiencies of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) could be related to ADHD. Research has shown that children and adolescents with ADHD have significantly lower plasma and blood concentrations of PUFA and, in particular, lower levels of omega-3 PUFA. These findings suggest that PUFA supplementation may reduce the attention and behaviour problems associated with ADHD. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. Overall, there was little evidence that PUFA supplementation improved symptoms of ADHD in children and adolescents.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy of PUFA to other forms of treatment or placebo in treating the symptoms of ADHD in children and adolescents.\nSearch methods\nWe searched 13 databases and two trials registers up to October 2021. We also checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews for additional references.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared PUFA with placebo or PUFA plus alternative therapy (medication, behavioural therapy, or psychotherapy) with the same alternative therapy alone in children and adolescents (aged 18 years and under) diagnosed with ADHD.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was severity or improvement of ADHD symptoms. Our secondary outcomes were severity or incidence of behavioural problems; quality of life; severity or incidence of depressive symptoms; severity or incidence of anxiety symptoms; side effects; loss to follow-up; and cost. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 37 trials with more than 2374 participants, of which 24 trials were new to this update. Five trials (seven reports) used a cross-over design, while the remaining 32 trials (52 reports) used a parallel design. Seven trials were conducted in Iran, four each in the USA and Israel, and two each in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. Single studies were conducted in Brazil, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, and Taiwan. Of the 36 trials that compared a PUFA to placebo, 19 used an omega-3 PUFA, six used a combined omega-3/omega-6 supplement, and two used an omega-6 PUFA. The nine remaining trials were included in the comparison of PUFA to placebo, but also had the same co-intervention in the PUFA and placebo groups. Of these, four trials compared a combination of omega-3 PUFA plus methylphenidate to methylphenidate. One trial each compared omega-3 PUFA plus atomoxetine to atomoxetine; omega-3 PUFA plus physical training to physical training; and an omega-3 or omega-6 supplement plus methylphenidate to methylphenidate; and two trials compared omega-3 PUFA plus dietary supplement to dietary supplement. Supplements were given for a period of between two weeks and six months.\nAlthough we found low-certainty evidence that PUFA compared to placebo may improve ADHD symptoms in the medium term (risk ratio (RR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.47 to 2.60; 3 studies, 191 participants), there was high-certainty evidence that PUFA had no effect on parent-rated total ADHD symptoms compared to placebo in the medium term (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.08, 95% CI −0.24 to 0.07; 16 studies, 1166 participants). There was also high-certainty evidence that parent-rated inattention (medium-term: SMD −0.01, 95% CI −0.20 to 0.17; 12 studies, 960 participants) and hyperactivity/impulsivity (medium-term: SMD 0.09, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.23; 10 studies, 869 participants) scores were no different compared to placebo.\nThere was moderate-certainty evidence that overall side effects likely did not differ between PUFA and placebo groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.52; 8 studies, 591 participants). There was also moderate-certainty evidence that medium-term loss to follow-up was likely similar between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.37; 13 studies, 1121 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough we found low-certainty evidence that children and adolescents receiving PUFA may be more likely to improve compared to those receiving placebo, there was high-certainty evidence that PUFA had no effect on total parent-rated ADHD symptoms. There was also high-certainty evidence that inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity did not differ between PUFA and placebo groups.\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence that overall side effects likely did not differ between PUFA and placebo groups. There was also moderate-certainty evidence that follow-up was similar between groups.\nIt is important that future research addresses the current weaknesses in this area, which include small sample sizes, variability of selection criteria, variability of the type and dosage of supplementation, and short follow-up times.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to know whether PUFA supplements improve ADHD symptoms in children and adolescents with ADHD.\nAlthough there were some limited data in the original review that suggested PUFA improved symptoms of ADHD, there is currently little evidence that PUFA supplementation is beneficial. It was important to update the evidence to incorporate new studies that have been published since the original review."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7595
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThere is a common perception that smoking generally helps people to manage stress, and may be a form of 'self-medication' in people with mental health conditions. However, there are biologically plausible reasons why smoking may worsen mental health through neuroadaptations arising from chronic smoking, leading to frequent nicotine withdrawal symptoms (e.g. anxiety, depression, irritability), in which case smoking cessation may help to improve rather than worsen mental health.\nObjectives\nTo examine the association between tobacco smoking cessation and change in mental health.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the trial registries clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, from 14 April 2012 to 07 January 2020. These were updated searches of a previously-conducted non-Cochrane review where searches were conducted from database inception to 13 April 2012.\nSelection criteria\nWe included controlled before-after studies, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysed by smoking status at follow-up, and longitudinal cohort studies. In order to be eligible for inclusion studies had to recruit adults who smoked tobacco, and assess whether they quit or continued smoking during the study. They also had to measure a mental health outcome at baseline and at least six weeks later.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcomes were change in depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms or mixed anxiety and depression symptoms between baseline and follow-up. Secondary outcomes included change in symptoms of stress, psychological quality of life, positive affect, and social impact or social quality of life, as well as new incidence of depression, anxiety, or mixed anxiety and depression disorders.\nWe assessed the risk of bias for the primary outcomes using a modified ROBINS-I tool. For change in mental health outcomes, we calculated the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the difference in change in mental health from baseline to follow-up between those who had quit smoking and those who had continued to smoke. For the incidence of psychological disorders, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. For all meta-analyses we used a generic inverse variance random-effects model and quantified statistical heterogeneity using I2. We conducted subgroup analyses to investigate any differences in associations between sub-populations, i.e. unselected people with mental illness, people with physical chronic diseases.\nWe assessed the certainty of evidence for our primary outcomes (depression, anxiety, and mixed depression and anxiety) and our secondary social impact outcome using the eight GRADE considerations relevant to non-randomised studies (risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, publication bias, magnitude of the effect, the influence of all plausible residual confounding, the presence of a dose-response gradient).\nMain results\nWe included 102 studies representing over 169,500 participants. Sixty-two of these were identified in the updated search for this review and 40 were included in the original version of the review. Sixty-three studies provided data on change in mental health, 10 were included in meta-analyses of incidence of mental health disorders, and 31 were synthesised narratively.\nFor all primary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in mental health symptoms compared with continuing to smoke: anxiety symptoms (SMD −0.28, 95% CI −0.43 to −0.13; 15 studies, 3141 participants; I2 = 69%; low-certainty evidence); depression symptoms: (SMD −0.30, 95% CI −0.39 to −0.21; 34 studies, 7156 participants; I2 = 69%' very low-certainty evidence); mixed anxiety and depression symptoms (SMD −0.31, 95% CI −0.40 to −0.22; 8 studies, 2829 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). These findings were robust to preplanned sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analysis generally did not produce evidence of differences in the effect size among subpopulations or based on methodological characteristics. All studies were deemed to be at serious risk of bias due to possible time-varying confounding, and three studies measuring depression symptoms were judged to be at critical risk of bias overall. There was also some evidence of funnel plot asymmetry. For these reasons, we rated our certainty in the estimates for anxiety as low, for depression as very low, and for mixed anxiety and depression as moderate.\nFor the secondary outcomes, smoking cessation was associated with an improvement in symptoms of stress (SMD −0.19, 95% CI −0.34 to −0.04; 4 studies, 1792 participants; I2 = 50%), positive affect (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.33; 13 studies, 4880 participants; I2 = 75%), and psychological quality of life (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.16; 19 studies, 18,034 participants; I2 = 42%). There was also evidence that smoking cessation was not associated with a reduction in social quality of life, with the confidence interval incorporating the possibility of a small improvement (SMD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 9 studies, 14,673 participants; I2 = 0%). The incidence of new mixed anxiety and depression was lower in people who stopped smoking compared with those who continued (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86; 3 studies, 8685 participants; I2 = 57%), as was the incidence of anxiety disorder (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.12; 2 studies, 2293 participants; I2 = 46%). We deemed it inappropriate to present a pooled estimate for the incidence of new cases of clinical depression, as there was high statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 87%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTaken together, these data provide evidence that mental health does not worsen as a result of quitting smoking, and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that smoking cessation is associated with small to moderate improvements in mental health. These improvements are seen in both unselected samples and in subpopulations, including people diagnosed with mental health conditions. Additional studies that use more advanced methods to overcome time-varying confounding would strengthen the evidence in this area.\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": "People who stop smoking are not likely to experience a worsening in their mood long-term, whether they have a mental health condition or not. They may also experience improvements in their mental health, such as reductions in anxiety and depression symptoms."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7596
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCystic fibrosis is the most common autosomal recessive disease in white populations, and causes respiratory dysfunction in the majority of individuals. Numerous types of respiratory muscle training to improve respiratory function and health-related quality of life in people with cystic fibrosis have been reported in the literature. Hence a systematic review of the literature is needed to establish the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training (either inspiratory or expiratory muscle training) on clinical outcomes in cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training on clinical outcomes in people with cystic fibrosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials register comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.\nDate of most recent search: 11 June 2020.\nA hand search of the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis and Pediatric Pulmonology was performed, along with an electronic search of online trial databases. Date of most recent search: 05 October 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled studies comparing respiratory muscle training with a control group in people with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors independently selected articles for inclusion, evaluated the methodological quality of the studies, and extracted data. Additional information was sought from trial authors where necessary. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE system.\nMain results\nAuthors identified 20 studies, of which 10 studies with 238 participants met the review's inclusion criteria. There was wide variation in the methodological and written quality of the included studies. Four of the 10 included studies were published as abstracts only and lacked concise details, thus limiting the information available. Eight studies were parallel studies and two of a cross-over design. Respiratory muscle training interventions varied dramatically, with frequency, intensity and duration ranging from thrice weekly to twice daily, 20% to 80% of maximal effort, and 10 to 30 minutes, respectively. Participant numbers ranged from 11 to 39 participants in the included studies; five studies were in adults only, one in children only and four in a combination of children and adults.\nNo differences between treatment and control were reported in the primary outcome of pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity) or postural stability (very low-quality evidence). Although no change was reported in exercise capacity as assessed by the maximum rate of oxygen use and distance completed in a six minute walk test, a 10% improvement in exercise duration was found when working at 60% of maximal effort in one study (n = 20) (very low-quality evidence). In a further study (n = 18), when working at 80% of maximal effort, health-related quality of life improved in the mastery and emotion domains (very low-quality evidence). With regards to the review's secondary outcomes, one study (n = 11) found a change in intramural pressure, functional residual capacity and maximal inspiratory pressure following training (very low-quality evidence). Another study (n=36) reported improvements in maximal inspiratory pressure following training (P < 0.001) (very low-quality evidence). A further study (n = 22) reported that respiratory muscle endurance was longer in the training group (P < 0.01). No studies reported significant differences on any other secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses could not be performed due to a lack of consistency and insufficient detail in reported outcome measures.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to suggest whether this intervention is beneficial or not. Healthcare practitioners should consider the use of respiratory muscle training on a case-by-case basis. Further research of reputable methodological quality is needed to determine the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training in people with cystic fibrosis. Researchers should consider the following clinical outcomes in future studies; respiratory muscle function, pulmonary function, exercise capacity, hospital admissions, and health-related quality of life. Sensory-perceptual changes, such as respiratory effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived breathlessness) and peripheral effort sensation (e.g. rating of perceived exertion) may also help to elucidate mechanisms underpinning the effectiveness of respiratory muscle training.\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": "Cystic fibrosis is the most common genetic disease in white populations and causes problems with the lungs in most people with the condition. Training the muscles that cause the chest to expand and contract may help to improve lung function and the quality of life for people with cystic fibrosis."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7597
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe current COVID-19 pandemic has been identified as a possible trigger for increases in loneliness and social isolation among older people due to the restrictions on movement that many countries have put in place. Loneliness and social isolation are consistently identified as risk factors for poor mental and physical health in older people. Video calls may help older people stay connected during the current crisis by widening the participant’s social circle or by increasing the frequency of contact with existing acquaintances.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective of this rapid review is to assess the effectiveness of video calls for reducing social isolation and loneliness in older adults. The review also sought to address the effectiveness of video calls on reducing symptoms of depression and improving quality of life.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL from 1 January 2004 to 7 April 2020. We also searched the references of relevant systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (including cluster designs) were eligible for inclusion. We excluded all other study designs. The samples in included studies needed to have a mean age of at least 65 years. We included studies that included participants whether or not they were experiencing symptoms of loneliness or social isolation at baseline. Any intervention in which a core component involved the use of the internet to facilitate video calls or video conferencing through computers, smartphones or tablets with the intention of reducing loneliness or social isolation, or both, in older adults was eligible for inclusion. We included studies in the review if they reported self-report measures of loneliness, social isolation, symptoms of depression or quality of life.\nTwo review authors screened 25% of abstracts; a third review author resolved conflicts. A single review author screened the remaining abstracts. The second review author screened all excluded abstracts and we resolved conflicts by consensus or by involving a third review author. We followed the same process for full-text articles.\nData collection and analysis\nOne review author extracted data, which another review author checked. The primary outcomes were loneliness and social isolation and the secondary outcomes were symptoms of depression and quality of life. One review author rated the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes according to the GRADE approach and another review author checked the ratings. We conducted fixed-effect meta-analyses for the primary outcome, loneliness, and the secondary outcome, symptoms of depression.\nMain results\nWe identified three cluster quasi-randomised trials, which together included 201 participants. The included studies compared video call interventions to usual care in nursing homes. None of these studies were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.\nEach study measured loneliness using the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Total scores range from 20 (least lonely) to 80 (most lonely). The evidence was very uncertain and suggests that video calls may result in little to no difference in scores on the UCLA Loneliness Scale compared to usual care at three months (mean difference (MD) −0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) −3.28 to 2.41; 3 studies; 201 participants), at six months (MD −0.34, 95% CI −3.41 to 2.72; 2 studies; 152 participants) and at 12 months (MD −2.40, 95% CI −7.20 to 2.40; 1 study; 90 participants). We downgraded the certainty of this evidence by three levels for study limitations, imprecision and indirectness.\nNone of the included studies reported social isolation as an outcome.\nEach study measured symptoms of depression using the Geriatric Depression Scale. Total scores range from 0 (better) to 30 (worse). The evidence was very uncertain and suggests that video calls may result in little to no difference in scores on the Geriatric Depression Scale compared to usual care at three months' follow-up (MD 0.41, 95% CI −0.90 to 1.72; 3 studies; 201 participants) or six months' follow-up (MD −0.83, 95% CI −2.43 to 0.76; 2 studies, 152 participants). The evidence suggests that video calls may have a small effect on symptoms of depression at one-year follow-up, though this finding is imprecise (MD −2.04, 95% CI −3.98 to −0.10; 1 study; 90 participants). We downgraded the certainty of this evidence by three levels for study limitations, imprecision and indirectness.\nOnly one study, with 62 participants, reported quality of life. The study measured quality of life using a Taiwanese adaptation of the Short-Form 36-question health survey (SF-36), which consists of eight subscales that measure different aspects of quality of life: physical function; physical role; emotional role; social function; pain: vitality; mental health; and physical health. Each subscale is scored from 0 (poor health) to 100 (good health). The evidence is very uncertain and suggests that there may be little to no difference between people allocated to usual care and those allocated to video calls in three-month scores in physical function (MD 2.88, 95% CI −5.01 to 10.77), physical role (MD −7.66, 95% CI −24.08 to 8.76), emotional role (MD −7.18, 95% CI −16.23 to 1.87), social function (MD 2.77, 95% CI −8.87 to 14.41), pain scores (MD −3.25, 95% CI −15.11 to 8.61), vitality scores (MD −3.60, 95% CI −9.01 to 1.81), mental health (MD 9.19, 95% CI 0.36 to 18.02) and physical health (MD 5.16, 95% CI −2.48 to 12.80). We downgraded the certainty of this evidence by three levels for study limitations, imprecision and indirectness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on this review there is currently very uncertain evidence on the effectiveness of video call interventions to reduce loneliness in older adults. The review did not include any studies that reported evidence of the effectiveness of video call interventions to address social isolation in older adults. The evidence regarding the effectiveness of video calls for outcomes of symptoms of depression was very uncertain.\nFuture research in this area needs to use more rigorous methods and more diverse and representative participants. Specifically, future studies should target older adults, who are demonstrably lonely or socially isolated, or both, across a range of settings to determine whether video call interventions are effective in a population in which these outcomes are in need of improvement.\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": "Our certainty (confidence) in the evidence was limited because we found few studies with a small number of participants, and they either used unreliable methods or did not fully describe their methods. Also, all of the participants were in nursing homes, so our findings may not apply to older people living in other places, such as their own homes. Also, some of the participants may not have been feeling lonely or socially isolated."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7598
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of the Cochrane review \"Pharmacologic treatment for memory disorder in multiple sclerosis\" (first published in The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 10).\nMultiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic immune-mediated, inflammatory, demyelinating, neurodegenerative disorder of the central nervous system (CNS) and can cause both neurological and neuropsychological disability. Both demyelination and axonal and neuronal loss are believed to contribute to MS-related cognitive impairment. Memory disorder is one of the most frequent cognitive dysfunctions and presents a considerable burden to people with MS and to society due to the negative impact on function. A number of pharmacological agents have been evaluated in many existing randomised controlled trials for their efficacy on memory disorder in people with MS but the results were not consistent.\nObjectives\nTo assess the absolute and comparative efficacy, tolerability and safety of pharmacological treatments for memory disorder in adults with MS.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the Central Nervous System Group Trials Register (24 July 2013), PsycINFO (January 1980 to 26 June 2013) and CBMdisc (1978 to 24 June 2013), and checked reference lists of identified articles, searched some relevant journals manually, registers of clinical trials and published abstracts of conference proceedings.\nSelection criteria\nAll double-blind, randomised controlled parallel trials on pharmacological treatment versus placebo or one or more pharmacological treatments in adults with MS who had at least mild memory impairment (at 0.5 standard deviations below age- and sex-based normative data on a validated memory scale). We placed no restrictions regarding dose, route of administration and frequency; however, we only included trials with an administration duration of 12 weeks or greater.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We discussed disagreements and resolved them by consensus among review authors. We contacted principal investigators of included studies for additional data or confirmation.\nMain results\nWe included seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 625 people mostly with relapsing-remitting, secondary-progressive and primary-progressive MS, evaluating the absolute efficacy of donepezil, ginkgo biloba, memantine and rivastigmine versus placebo in improving memory performance with diverse assessment scales. Overall, clinical and methodological heterogeneities existed across these studies. Moreover, most of them had methodological limitations on non-specific selections of targeted sample, non-matched variables at baseline or incomplete outcome data (high attrition bias). Only the two studies on donepezil had clinical and methodological homogeneity and relatively low risks for bias. One RCT evaluating estriol versus placebo is currently ongoing.\nWe could not carry out a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneities across studies and the high attrition bias. A subgroup analysis for donepezil versus placebo showed no treatment effects on total recall on the Selective Reminding Test (mean difference (MD) 1.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.21 to 5.58), total correct scores on the 10/36 Spatial Recall Test (MD -0.93; 95% CI -3.18 to 1.32), the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (MD -1.27; 95% CI -3.15 to 0.61) and the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (2+3 sec) (MD 2.23; 95% CI -1.87 to 6.33). Concerning safety, the main adverse events were: diarrhoea (risk ratio (RR) 3.88; 95% CI 1.66 to 9.05), nausea (RR 1.71; 95% CI 0.93 to 3.18) and abnormal dreams (RR 2.91; 95% CI 1.38 to 6.14). However, the results in both studies were subjected to a serious imprecision resulting from the small sample sizes and the low power of test (lower than 80%), which contributed to a moderate quality of the evidence. No serious adverse events were attributed to the treatments in all experimental groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no convincing evidence to support the efficacy of pharmacological symptomatic treatment for MS-associated memory disorder because most of available RCTs had a limited quality. Whether pharmacological treatment is effective for memory disorder in patients with MS remains inconclusive. However, there is moderate-quality evidence that donepezil 10 mg daily was not effective in improving memory in MS patients with mild memory impairment, but had a good tolerability. Adverse events such as nausea, diarrhoea and abnormal dreams were not frequent but were associated with treatment. Ginkgo biloba, memantine and rivastigmine were safe and well tolerated and no serious adverse effects were reported. Future large-scale RCTs with higher methodological quality 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 searched medical databases for randomised controlled trials (where participants were randomly allocated to one of two or more treatment groups) of adults with MS. Neither patients nor researchers were told which treatment was given. Doctors had diagnosed MS and memory impairment using standard methods."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7599
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe use of systemic immunotherapy targets is emerging as an important treatment option for metastatic urothelial carcinoma, particularly for patients who cannot tolerate or who fail cisplatin-based chemotherapy. One such target is the inhibition of the checkpoint protein programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) receptor and its ligand (PD-L1) by monoclonal antibodies.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy for treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma with disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a Cochrane Rapid Review, limiting our search to published studies in the English language. We searched databases of the medical literature, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MEDLINE, as well as trial registries including ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). Our search extended from January 2000 to June 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials except cross-over trials and cluster randomised trials. We excluded all other study designs. Participants included had locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, with disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy (synonymous with second-/third-/fourth-line therapy). This review focused on pembrolizumab (synonyms: MK-3475, lambrolizumab, Keytruda).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently classified and abstracted data from the included study. The certainty of evidence was rated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.\nMain results\nWe identified one randomised controlled trial that included 542 participants, which compared the use of pembrolizumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma with disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy. Results were reported after a median follow-up of 14.1 months (range 9.9 to 22.1 months).\nPrimary outcomes\nPembrolizumab probably reduces the risk of death from any cause (hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.90; moderate certainty evidence). This corresponds to 115 fewer deaths (191 fewer to 38 fewer) per 1000 participants with pembrolizumab at 12 months. We downgraded the certainty of evidence one level for imprecision.\nPembrolizumab may slightly improve quality of life (change from baseline to week 15 assessed with the Core Quality of Life Questionnaire; higher value reflects better quality of life; scale 0 to 100) with a mean difference (MD) of 9.05, 95% CI 4.61 to 13.50; low certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence two levels for study limitations and imprecision.\nSecondary outcomes\nPembrolizumab may have little or no effect on disease progression (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.19; low certainty evidence). This corresponds to three fewer patients (42 fewer to 24 more) whose disease progressed per 1000 participants at 12 months. We downgraded the certainty of evidence two levels for study limitations and imprecision.\nPembrolizumab probably improves treatment response (based on complete or partial radiologic response) with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.85, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.77; moderate certainty evidence). This corresponds to 97 more respondents (27 more to 202 more) per 1000 participants with pembrolizumab. We downgraded the certainty of evidence one level for imprecision.\nPembrolizumab may have little or no effect on treatment-related mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.79; low certainty evidence). This corresponds to one fewer (12 fewer to 44 more) treatment-related deaths per 1000 participants with pembrolizumab. We downgraded the certainty of evidence two levels for study limitations and imprecision.\nPembrolizumab may have little or no effect on discontinuations due to adverse events (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.10). This corresponds to 54 fewer discontinuations per 1000 participants (95% CI 79 fewer to 7 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and imprecision.\nPembrolizumab may reduce serious adverse events (RR 0.83, 95 CI 0.72 to 0.97; low certainty evidence). This corresponds to 107 fewer serious averse events per 1000 participants (95% CI 19 fewer to 176 fewer). We downgraded two levels for study limitations and imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe use of pembrolizumab in men with advanced urothelial carcinoma with disease progression during or following platinum-containing chemotherapy probably improves overall survival when compared with chemotherapy alone. At 12 months follow-up about 70% of those in the chemotherapy group had died, compared with 59% of those treated with pembrolizumab. We are very uncertain about the effects of pembolizumab on quality of life. Pembolizumab may also improve treatment response rates, and reduce the risk of serious adverse events, but may make little or no difference to discontinuations of treatment due to adverse events. These conclusions are based on a single trial that was sponsored by the producer of pembrolizumab.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "How does pembrolizumab (a newer medicine that works through the body's immune system) compare to chemotherapy in patients with cancer of the inner lining of the urinary system, called urothelial cancer, that has either come back or worsened after treatment?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7600
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPhototherapy is a well-established effective therapy for treating babies with significant neonatal jaundice. Studies have shown that increasing light intensity will increase its efficiency. A potentially inexpensive and easy way of increasing the intensity of light on the body of the infant may be to hang reflective materials from the sides of phototherapy units.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of reflective materials in combination with phototherapy compared with phototherapy alone for unconjugated hyperbilirubinaemia in neonates.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 11), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R); and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), on 1 November 2019. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials if the participants, who were term or preterm infants, received phototherapy with curtains made of reflective materials of any type in the treatment arm, and if those in the comparison arm received similar phototherapy without curtains or other intensified phototherapy, such as a double bank of lights.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nOf 15 studies identified, we included 12 (1288 babies) in the review - 11 comparing phototherapy with reflective materials and phototherapy alone, and one comparing a single phototherapy light bank with reflective materials with double phototherapy. All reflective materials consisted of curtains on three or four sides of the cot and were made of white plastic (five studies), white linen (two studies), or aluminium (three studies); materials were not specified in two studies. Only 11 studies (10 comparing reflective materials versus none and one comparing reflective curtains and a single bank of lights with a double (above and below) phototherapy unit) provided sufficient data to be included in the meta-analysis. Two excluded studies used the reflective materials in a way that did not meet our inclusion criteria, and we excluded one study because it compared four different phototherapy interventions not including reflective materials. The risk of bias of included studies was generally low, but all studies had high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of the intervention.\nThree studies (281 participants) reported a decline in serum bilirubin (SB) (μmol/L) at four to eight hours (mean difference (MD) -14.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) -19.80 to -9.42; I² = 57%; moderate-certainty evidence). Nine studies (893 participants) reported a decline in SB over 24 hours and showed a faster decline in SB in the intervention group, but heterogeneity (I² = 97%) was too substantial to permit a meaningful estimate of the actual effect size (very low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by type of reflective material used did not explain the heterogeneity. Exchange transfusion was reported by two studies; both reported none in either group. Four studies (466 participants) reported the mean duration of phototherapy, and in each of these studies, it was reduced in the intervention group but there was substantial heterogeneity (I² = 88%), precluding meaningful meta-analysis of data. The only two studies that reported the mean duration of hospital stay in hours showed a meaningful reduction (MD -41.08, 95% CI -45.92 to -36.25; I² = 0; moderate-certainty evidence).\nNo studies reported costs of the intervention, parental or medical staff satisfaction, breastfeeding outcomes, or neurodevelopmental follow-up.\nThe only study that compared use of curtains with double phototherapy reported similar results for both groups.\nStudies that monitored adverse events did not report increased adverse events related to the use of curtains, including acute life-threatening events, but other rarer side effects could not be excluded.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-certainty evidence shows that the use of reflective curtains during phototherapy may result in greater decline in SB. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the duration of phototherapy is reduced, and moderate-certainty evidence shows that the duration of hospital stay is also reduced. Available evidence does not show any increase in adverse events, but further studies are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Evidence is of moderate certainty."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7601
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFunctional abdominal pain is pain occurring in the abdomen that cannot be fully explained by another medical condition and is common in children. It has been hypothesised that the use of micro-organisms, such as probiotics and synbiotics (a mixture of probiotics and prebiotics), might change the composition of bacterial colonies in the bowel and reduce inflammation, as well as promote normal gut physiology and reduce functional symptoms.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics in the treatment of functional abdominal pain disorders in children.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and two clinical trials registers from inception to October 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare probiotic preparations (including synbiotics) to placebo, no treatment or any other interventional preparation in patients aged between 4 and 18 years of age with a diagnosis of functional abdominal pain disorder according to the Rome II, Rome III or Rome IV criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nThe primary outcomes were treatment success as defined by the primary studies, complete resolution of pain, improvement in the severity of pain and improvement in the frequency of pain. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, adverse events, school performance or change in school performance or attendance, social and psychological functioning or change in social and psychological functioning, and quality of life or change in quality life measured using any validated scoring tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI.\nMain results\nWe included 18 RCTs assessing the effectiveness of probiotics and synbiotics in reducing the severity and frequency of pain, involving a total of 1309 patients.\nProbiotics may achieve more treatment success when compared with placebo at the end of the treatment, with 50% success in the probiotic group versus 33% success in the placebo group (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.36; 554 participants; 6 studies; I2 = 70%; low-certainty evidence).\nIt is not clear whether probiotics are more effective than placebo for complete resolution of pain, with 42% success in the probiotic group versus 27% success in the placebo group (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.56; 460 participants; 6 studies; I2 = 70%; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the evidence to be of very low certainty due to high inconsistency and risk of bias.\nWe were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of the pain severity and pain frequency outcomes due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence.\nNone of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between probiotics (1/275) and placebo (1/269) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.12). The results were identical for the total patients with any reported adverse event outcome. However, these results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias.\nSynbiotics may result in more treatment success at study end when compared with placebo, with 47% success in the probiotic group versus 35% success in the placebo group (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.74; 310 participants; 4 studies; I2 = 0%; low certainty). One study used Bifidobacterium coagulans/fructo-oligosaccharide, one used Bifidobacterium lactis/inulin, one used Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG/inulin and in one study this was not stated).\nSynbiotics may result in little difference in complete resolution of pain at study end when compared with placebo, with 52% success in the probiotic group versus 32% success in the placebo group (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 131 participants; 2 studies; I2 = 18%; low-certainty evidence).\nWe were unable to draw meaningful conclusions from our meta-analyses of pain severity or frequency of pain due to very high unexplained heterogeneity leading to very low-certainty evidence.\nNone of the included studies reported serious adverse events. Meta-analysis showed little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events between synbiotics (8/155) and placebo (1/147) (RR 4.58, 95% CI 0.80 to 26.19), or in any reported adverse events (3/96 versus 1/93, RR 2.88, 95% CI 0.32 to 25.92). These results are of very low certainty due to imprecision from the very low numbers of events and risk of bias.\nThere were insufficient data to analyse by subgroups of specific functional abdominal pain syndrome (irritable bowel syndrome, functional dyspepsia, abdominal migraine, functional abdominal pain - not otherwise specified) or by specific strain of probiotic.\nThere was insufficient evidence on school performance or change in school performance/attendance, social and psychological functioning, or quality of life to draw conclusions about the effects of probiotics or synbiotics on these outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results from this review demonstrate that probiotics and synbiotics may be more efficacious than placebo in achieving treatment success, but the evidence is of low certainty. The evidence demonstrates little to no difference between probiotics or synbiotics and placebo in complete resolution of pain. We were unable to draw meaningful conclusions about the impact of probiotics or synbiotics on the frequency and severity of pain as the evidence was all of very low certainty due to significant unexplained heterogeneity or imprecision.\nThere were no reported cases of serious adverse events when using probiotics or synbiotics amongst the included studies, although a review of RCTs may not be the best context to assess long-term safety. The available evidence on adverse effects was of very low certainty and no conclusions could be made in this review. Safety will always be a priority in paediatric populations when considering any treatment. Reporting of all adverse events, adverse events needing withdrawal, serious adverse events and, particularly, long-term safety outcomes are vital to meaningfully move forward the evidence base in this field.\nFurther targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies to confirm the safety of specific strains not yet investigated and studies to investigate long-term follow-up of patients are both warranted.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Probiotics for stomach pain in children\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": ""
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7602
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSeveral antibiotics have been evaluated in Crohn's disease (CD), however randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotics for induction and maintenance of remission in CD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD Group Specialized Register and Clinicaltrials.gov database from inception to 28 February 2018. We also searched reference lists and conference proceedings.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs comparing antibiotics to placebo or an active comparator in adult (> 15 years) CD patients were considered for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors screened search results and extracted data. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes were failure to achieve clinical remission and relapse. Secondary outcomes included clinical response, endoscopic response, endoscopic remission, endoscopic relapse, histologic response, histologic remission, adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, withdrawal due to AEs and quality of life. Remission is commonly defined as a Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) of < 150. Clinical response is commonly defined as a decrease in CDAI from baseline of 70 or 100 points. Relapse is defined as a CDAI > 150. For studies that enrolled participants with fistulizing CD, response was defined as a 50% reduction in draining fistulas. Remission was defined as complete closure of fistulas. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% CI for continuous outcomes. GRADE was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nThirteen RCTs (N = 1303 participants) were eligible. Two trials were rated as high risk of bias (no blinding). Seven trials were rated as unclear risk of bias and four trials were rated as low risk of bias. Comparisons included ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) versus placebo, rifaximin (800 to 2400 mg daily) versus placebo, metronidazole (400 mg to 500 mg twice daily) versus placebo, clarithromycin (1 g/day) versus placebo, cotrimoxazole (960 mg twice daily) versus placebo, ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) and metronidazole (250 mg four time daily) versus methylprednisolone (0.7 to 1 mg/kg daily), ciprofloxacin (500 mg daily), metronidazole (500 mg daily) and budesonide (9 mg daily) versus placebo with budesonide (9 mg daily), ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) versus mesalazine (2 g twice daily), ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) with adalimumab versus placebo with adalimumab, ciprofloxacin (500 mg twice daily) with infliximab versus placebo with infliximab, clarithromycin (750 mg daily) and antimycobacterial versus placebo, and metronidazole (400 mg twice daily) and cotrimoxazole (960 mg twice daily) versus placebo. We pooled all antibiotics as a class versus placebo and antibiotics with anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) versus placebo with anti-TNF.\nThe effect of individual antibiotics on CD was generally uncertain due to imprecision. When we pooled antibiotics as a class, 55% (289/524) of antibiotic participants failed to achieve remission at 6 to 10 weeks compared with 64% (149/231) of placebo participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.98; 7 studies; high certainty evidence). At 10 to 14 weeks, 41% (174/428) of antibiotic participants failed to achieve a clinical response compared to 49% (93/189) of placebo participants (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.93; 5 studies; moderate certainty evidence). The effect of antibiotics on relapse in uncertain. Forty-five per cent (37/83) of antibiotic participants relapsed at 52 weeks compared to 57% (41/72) of placebo participants (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.47; 2 studies; low certainty evidence). Relapse of endoscopic remission was not reported in the included studies. Antibiotics do not appear to increase the risk of AEs. Thirty-eight per cent (214/568) of antibiotic participants had at least one adverse event compared to 45% (128/284) of placebo participants (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02; 9 studies; high certainty evidence). The effect of antibiotics on serious AEs and withdrawal due to AEs was uncertain. Two per cent (6/377) of antibiotic participants had at least one adverse event compared to 0.7% (1/143) of placebo participants (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.29 to 10.01; 3 studies; low certainty evidence). Nine per cent (53/569) of antibiotic participants withdrew due to AEs compared to 12% (36/289) of placebo participants (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.29; 9 studies; low certainty evidence) is uncertain. Common adverse events in the studies included gastrointestinal upset, upper respiratory tract infection, abscess formation and headache, change in taste and paraesthesia\nWhen we pooled antibiotics used with anti-TNF, 21% (10/48) of patients on combination therapy failed to achieve a clinical response(50% closure of fistulas) or remission (closure of fistulas) at week 12 compared with 36% (19/52) of placebo and anti-TNF participants (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.10; 2 studies; low certainty evidence). These studies did not assess the effect of antibiotics and anti-TNF on clinical or endoscopic relapse. Seventy-seven per cent (37/48) of antibiotics and anti-TNF participants had an AE compared to 83% (43/52) of anti-TNF and placebo participants (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.12; 2 studies, moderate certainty evidence). The effect of antibiotics and anti-TNF on withdrawal due to AEs is uncertain. Six per cent (3/48) of antibiotics and anti-TNF participants withdrew due to an AE compared to 8% (4/52) of anti-TNF and placebo participants (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.45; 2 studies, low certainty evidence). Common adverse events included nausea, vomiting, upper respiratory tract infections, change in taste, fatigue and headache\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate to high quality evidence suggests that any benefit provided by antibiotics in active CD is likely to be modest and may not be clinically meaningful. High quality evidence suggests that there is no increased risk of adverse events with antibiotics compared to placebo. The effect of antibiotics on the risk of serious adverse events is uncertain. The effect of antibiotics on maintenance of remission in CD is uncertain. Thus, no firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of antibiotics for maintenance of remission in CD can be drawn. More research is needed to determine the efficacy and safety of antibiotics as therapy in CD\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What were the results?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Several antibiotics, including ciprofloxacin, metronidazole, clarithromycin, rifaximin and cotrimoxazole, have been studied in CD. Most of the included studies were small in size. When we pooled antibiotics as a class, these drugs provided a modest benefit over placebo (i.e. a fake drug such as a sugar pill) for induction of remission and improvement of CD symptoms. For example, remission rates were 45% (253/542) in participants who received antibiotics compared to 36% (82/231) in participants who received placebo. We rated the quality of evidence supporting this outcome as high. Few studies assessed the use of antibiotics for maintenance of remission in CD. The impact of antibiotics on preventing relapse in CD is uncertain. Antibiotics do not appear to increase the risk of side effects when compared to placebo. Common side effects reported in the studies included gastrointestinal upset, upper respiratory tract infection, abscess formation, headache, change in taste and paraesthesia (pins and needles in the extremities). Serious side effects were not well reported in the studies and the impact of antibiotics on the risk of serious side effects is uncertain."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7603
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nWomen with a suspected large-for-dates fetus or a fetus with suspected macrosomia (birthweight greater than 4000 g) are at risk of operative birth or caesarean section. The baby is also at increased risk of shoulder dystocia and trauma, in particular fractures and brachial plexus injury. Induction of labour may reduce these risks by decreasing the birthweight, but may also lead to longer labours and an increased risk of caesarean section.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of a policy of labour induction at or shortly before term (37 to 40 weeks) for suspected fetal macrosomia on the way of giving birth and maternal or perinatal morbidity.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016), contacted trial authors and searched reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials of induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia.\nData collection and analysis\nReview authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We contacted study authors for additional information. For key outcomes the quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included four trials, involving 1190 women. It was not possible to blind women and staff to the intervention, but for other 'Risk of bias' domains these studies were assessed as being at low or unclear risk of bias.\nCompared to expectant management, there was no clear effect of induction of labour for suspected macrosomia on the risk of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.09; 1190 women; four trials, moderate-quality evidence) or instrumental delivery (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.13; 1190 women; four trials, low-quality evidence). Shoulder dystocia (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.98; 1190 women; four trials, moderate-quality evidence), and fracture (any) (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.79; 1190 women; four studies, high-quality evidence) were reduced in the induction of labour group. There were no clear differences between groups for brachial plexus injury (two events were reported in the control group in one trial, low-quality evidence). There was no strong evidence of any difference between groups for measures of neonatal asphyxia; low five-minute infant Apgar scores (less than seven) or low arterial cord blood pH (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.02; 858 infants; two trials, low-quality evidence; and, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.22; 818 infants; one trial, moderate-quality evidence, respectively).\nMean birthweight was lower in the induction group, but there was considerable heterogeneity between studies for this outcome (mean difference (MD) -178.03 g, 95% CI -315.26 to -40.81; 1190 infants; four studies; I2 = 89%).\nFor outcomes assessed using GRADE, we based our downgrading decisions on high risk of bias from lack of blinding and imprecision of effect estimates.\nAuthors' conclusions\nInduction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia has not been shown to alter the risk of brachial plexus injury, but the power of the included studies to show a difference for such a rare event is limited. Also antenatal estimates of fetal weight are often inaccurate so many women may be worried unnecessarily, and many inductions may not be needed. Nevertheless, induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia results in a lower mean birthweight, and fewer birth fractures and shoulder dystocia. The observation of increased use of phototherapy in the largest trial, should also be kept in mind.\nFindings from trials included in the review suggest that to prevent one fracture it would be necessary to induce labour in 60 women. Since induction of labour does not appear to alter the rate of caesarean delivery or instrumental delivery, it is likely to be popular with many women. In settings where obstetricians can be reasonably confident about their scan assessment of fetal weight, the advantages and disadvantages of induction at or near term for fetuses suspected of being macrosomic should be discussed with parents.\nAlthough some parents and doctors may feel the evidence already justifies induction, others may justifiably disagree. Further trials of induction shortly before term for suspected fetal macrosomia are needed. Such trials should concentrate on refining the optimum gestation of induction, and improving the accuracy of the diagnosis of macrosomia.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What evidence did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found four trials that assessed induction of labour at 37 to 40 weeks for women when it was suspected that their baby was large. A total of 1190 pregnant, non-diabetic women were involved. We searched for evidence on 31 October 2015. The studies were of moderate or good quality although it was not possible to blind the women and staff providing care to which group women had been assigned. This may have introduced bias."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7604
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical intervention used to treat persistent low back pain. SCS is thought to modulate pain by sending electrical signals via implanted electrodes into the spinal cord. The long term benefits and harms of SCS for people with low back pain are uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects, including benefits and harms, of SCS for people with low back pain.\nSearch methods\nOn 10 June 2022, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and one other database for published trials. We also searched three clinical trials registers for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials comparing SCS with placebo or no treatment for low back pain. The primary comparison was SCS versus placebo, at the longest time point measured in the trials. Major outcomes were mean low back pain intensity, function, health-related quality of life, global assessment of efficacy, withdrawals due to adverse events, adverse events, and serious adverse events. Our primary time point was long-term follow-up (≥ 12 months).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 13 studies with 699 participants: 55% of participants were female; mean age ranged from 47 to 59 years; and all participants had chronic low back pain with mean duration of symptoms ranging from five to 12 years. Ten cross-over trials compared SCS with placebo. Three parallel-group trials assessed the addition of SCS to medical management.\nMost studies were at risk of performance and detection bias from inadequate blinding and selective reporting bias. The placebo-controlled trials had other important biases, including lack of accounting for period and carryover effects. Two of the three parallel trials assessing SCS as an addition to medical management were at risk of attrition bias, and all three had substantial cross-over to the SCS group for time points beyond six months. In the parallel-group trials, we considered the lack of placebo control to be an important source of bias.\nNone of our included studies evaluated the impact of SCS on mean low back pain intensity in the long term (≥ 12 months). The studies most often assessed outcomes in the immediate term (less than one month). At six months, the only available evidence was from a single cross-over trial (50 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that SCS probably does not improve back or leg pain, function, or quality of life compared with placebo. Pain was 61 points (on a 0- to 100-point scale, 0 = no pain) at six months with placebo, and 4 points better (8.2 points better to 0.2 points worse) with SCS. Function was 35.4 points (on a 0- to 100-point scale, 0 = no disability or best function) at six months with placebo, and 1.3 points better (3.9 points better to 1.3 points worse) with SCS. Health-related quality of life was 0.44 points out of 1 (0 to 1 index, 0 = worst quality of life) at six months with placebo, and 0.04 points better (0.16 points better to 0.08 points worse) with SCS. In that same study, nine participants (18%) experienced adverse events and four (8%) required revision surgery. Serious adverse events with SCS included infections, neurological damage, and lead migration requiring repeated surgery. We could not provide effect estimates of the relative risks as events were not reported for the placebo period.\nIn parallel trials assessing SCS as an addition to medical management, it is uncertain whether, in the medium or long term, SCS can reduce low back pain, leg pain, or health-related quality of life, or if it increases the number of people reporting a 50% improvement or better, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Low-certainty evidence suggests that adding SCS to medical management may slightly improve function and slightly reduce opioid use. In the medium term, mean function (0- to 100-point scale; lower is better) was 16.2 points better with the addition of SCS to medical management compared with medical management alone (95% confidence interval (CI) 19.4 points better to 13.0 points better; I2 = 95%; 3 studies, 430 participants; low-certainty evidence). The number of participants reporting opioid medicine use was 15% lower with the addition of SCS to medical management (95% CI 27% lower to 0% lower; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 290 participants; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events with SCS were poorly reported but included infection and lead migration. One study found that, at 24 months, 13 of 42 people (31%) receiving SCS required revision surgery. It is uncertain to what extent the addition of SCS to medical management increases the risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, adverse events, or serious adverse events, because the certainty of the evidence was very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nData in this review do not support the use of SCS to manage low back pain outside a clinical trial. Current evidence suggests SCS probably does not have sustained clinical benefits that would outweigh the costs and risks of this surgical intervention.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key findings\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "No studies have tested whether spinal cord stimulation surgery is better than placebo (sham or 'dummy' treatment) in people followed up for longer than 6 months. This means that the benefits of the treatment in the long term are unknown. Most of the available studies only measured outcomes at less than 1 month after treatment, and only 1 study measured outcomes at 6 months after treatment:\nPain intensity (0 to 100, lower scores mean less pain)\nAt 6 months, the only available study found no benefit of spinal cord stimulation on back pain compared with placebo (1 trial, 50 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). At 6 months, participants given placebo treatment reported that their average pain was 61 points, and those given spinal cord stimulation reported that their pain was 4 points better (8.2 points better to 0.2 points worse).\nFunction (0 to 100, lower scores mean better function)\nAt 6 months, one study found no benefit of spinal cord stimulation on function (that is, people's general physical function) compared with placebo (1 trial, 50 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants given placebo treatment reported that their functioning was 35.4 points at 6 months, and those given spinal cord stimulation reported that their functioning was 1.3 points better (3.9 points better to 1.3 points worse).\nHealth-related quality of life (0 to 1, higher scores mean better quality of life)\nAt 6 months, one study found no benefit from spinal cord stimulation on health-related quality of life compared with placebo (1 trial, 50 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants given placebo treatment reported that their health-related quality of life was 0.44 points at 6 months, and those given spinal cord stimulation reported that their health-related quality of life was 0.04 points better (0.16 points better to 0.08 points worse).\nGlobal assessment of efficacy (number of participants with a 50% improvement in pain or better)\nNone of the placebo-controlled studies measured this outcome.\nWithdrawals due to adverse events (i.e. an unwanted event that causes harm)\nWe are uncertain whether spinal cord stimulation caused people to withdraw from studies due to adverse events because there were few studies and the evidence was based on only a few cases.\nAdverse events (e.g. increased pain)\nOne study that followed people for 12 months found 9 participants (18%) experienced adverse events such as infections, damage to the spine or nerves, bladder problems, and movement of very small parts of the devices that deliver the electrical impulses to the spinal cord (known as 'lead migration').\nSerious adverse events (e.g. an infection requiring hospitalisation)\nSome studies reported serious adverse events in people receiving spinal cord stimulation that required repeated surgery. The only placebo-controlled study that followed people for 12 months found 4 participants (8%) required repeated surgery. In the five other studies of people receiving a new spinal cord stimulation implant, the number of people requiring repeat surgery, due to adverse events such as infection or device problems, ranged from 4.1% at 8 weeks to 30.9% at 24 months. However, it was not possible to estimate how common these events were compared with placebo or no treatment, as limited information was available."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7605
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nKidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage kidney disease. In a previous review we concluded that the routine use of ureteric stents in kidney transplantation reduces the incidence of major urological complications (MUC). Unfortunately, this reduction appears to lead to a concomitant rise in urinary tract infections (UTI). For kidney recipients UTI is now the commonest post-transplant complication. This represents a considerable risk to the immunosuppressed transplant recipient, particularly in the era of increased immunologically challenging transplants. There are a number of different approaches taken when considering ureteric stenting and these are associated with differing degrees of morbidity and hospital cost.\nObjectives\nThis review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of early versus late removal of the ureteric stent in kidney transplant recipients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 27 March 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nAll RCTs and quasi-RCTs were included in our meta-analysis. We included recipients of kidney transplants regardless of demography (adults or children) or the type of stent used.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors reviewed the identified studies to ascertain if they met inclusion criteria. We designated removal of a ureteric stent before the third postoperative week (< day 15) or during the index transplant admission as \"early\" removal. The studies were assessed for quality using the risk of bias tool. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of MUC. Further outcomes of interest were the incidence of UTI, idiosyncratic stent-related complications, hospital-related costs and adverse events. A subgroup analysis was performed examining the difference in complications reported depending on the type of ureteric stent used; bladder indwelling (BI) versus per-urethral (PU). Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).\nMain results\nFive studies (1127 patients) were included in our analysis. Generally the risk of bias of the included studies was judged low or unclear; they addressed the research question and utilised a prospective randomised design. It is uncertain whether early stent removal verus late stent removal improved the incidence of MUC (5 studies, 1127 participants: RR 1.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 5.71; I2 = 21%; low certainty evidence). The incidence of UTI may be reduced in the early stent removal group (5 studies, 1127 participants: RR 0.49 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; I2 = 59%; moderate certainty evidence). This possible reduction in the UTI incidence was only apparent if a BI stent was used, (3 studies, 539 participants, RR 0.45 95% CI 0.29 to 0.70; I2 = 13%; moderate certainty evidence). However, if an externalised PU stent was used there was no discernible difference in UTI incidence between the early and late group (2 studies, 588 participants: RR 0.60 95% CI 0.17, 2.03; I2 = 83%; low certainty evidence). Data on health economics and quality of life outcomes were lacking.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEarly removal of ureteric stents following kidney transplantation may reduce the incidence of UTI while it uncertain if there is a higher risk of MUC. BI stents are the optimum method for achieving this benefit.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "It is uncertain whether a bladder indwelling ureteric stent that is removed early following kidney transplantation reduces the risk of complications, however it may prevent urine tract infections."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7606
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPost-surgical hypoparathyroidism is a common complication after thyroid surgery. The incidence is likely to increase given the rising trend in the annual number of thyroid operations being performed. Measures to prevent post-thyroidectomy hypoparathyroidism including different surgical techniques and prophylactic calcium and vitamin D supplements have been extensively studied. The management of post-thyroidectomy hypoparathyroidism however has not been extensively evaluated. Routine use of calcium and vitamin D supplements in the postoperative period may reduce the risk of symptoms, temporary hypocalcaemia and hospital stay. However, this may lead to overtreatment and has no effect on long-term hypoparathyroidism. Current recommendations on the management of post-thyroidectomy hypoparathyroidism is based on low-quality evidence. Existing guidelines do not often distinguish between surgical and non-surgical hypoparathyroidism, and transient and long-term disease.\nThe aim of this systematic review was to summarise evidence on the use of calcium, vitamin D and recombinant parathyroid hormone in the management of post-thyroidectomy hypoparathyroidism. In addition, we aimed to highlight deficiencies in the current literature and stimulate further work in this field.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this systematic review was to assess the effects of calcium, vitamin D and recombinant parathyroid hormone in managing post-thyroidectomy hypoparathyroidism.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase as well as ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search for all databases was 17 December 2018 (except Embase, which was last searched on 21 December 2017). No language restrictions were applied.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to include randomised control trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) examining the effects of calcium, vitamin D or recombinant parathyroid hormone in people with temporary and long-term post-thyroidectomy hypoparathyroidism.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for relevance.\nMain results\nDatabase searches yielded a total of 1751 records. We retrieved potentially relevant full texts and excluded articles on the following basis: not a RCT or CCT; intervention, comparator or both did not match prespecified criteria; non-surgical causes of hypoparathyroidism, and studies on prevention. None of the articles was eligible for inclusion in the systematic review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis systematic review highlights a gap in the current literature and the lack of high-quality evidence in the management of post-thyroidectomy temporary and long-term hypoparathyroidism. Further research focusing on clinically relevant outcomes is needed to examine the effects of current treatments in the management of temporary and long-term post-thyroidectomy hypocalcaemia.\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 no relevant randomised controlled trials (clinical trials where people are randomly allocated to one of two or more treatment groups) or controlled clinical trials that evaluated the use of calcium, vitamin D supplements and parathyroid hormone in this condition.\nThis evidence is up to date as of 17 December 2018."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7607
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAvailable evidence on the effects of vitamin D on mortality has been inconclusive. In a recent systematic review, we found evidence that vitamin D3 may decrease mortality in mostly elderly women. The present systematic review updates and reassesses the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation used in primary and secondary prophylaxis of mortality.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in healthy adults and adults in a stable phase of disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index–Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index–Science (all up to February 2012). We checked references of included trials and pharmaceutical companies for unidentified relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials that compared any type of vitamin D in any dose with any duration and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adult participants. Participants could have been recruited from the general population or from patients diagnosed with a disease in a stable phase. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol)) or as an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol) or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)).\nData collection and analysis\nSix review authors extracted data independently. Random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses were conducted. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RRs). To account for trials with zero events, we performed meta-analyses of dichotomous data using risk differences (RDs) and empirical continuity corrections. We used published data and data obtained by contacting trial authors.\nTo minimise the risk of systematic error, we assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. Trial sequential analyses controlled the risk of random errors possibly caused by cumulative meta-analyses.\nMain results\nWe identified 159 randomised clinical trials. Ninety-four trials reported no mortality, and nine trials reported mortality but did not report in which intervention group the mortality occurred. Accordingly, 56 randomised trials with 95,286 participants provided usable data on mortality. The age of participants ranged from 18 to 107 years. Most trials included women older than 70 years. The mean proportion of women was 77%. Forty-eight of the trials randomly assigned 94,491 healthy participants. Of these, four trials included healthy volunteers, nine trials included postmenopausal women and 35 trials included older people living on their own or in institutional care. The remaining eight trials randomly assigned 795 participants with neurological, cardiovascular, respiratory or rheumatoid diseases. Vitamin D was administered for a weighted mean of 4.4 years. More than half of the trials had a low risk of bias. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. Forty-five trials (80%) reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants based on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. Participants in 19 trials had vitamin D adequacy (at or above 20 ng/mL). Participants in the remaining 26 trials had vitamin D insufficiency (less than 20 ng/mL).\nVitamin D decreased mortality in all 56 trials analysed together (5,920/47,472 (12.5%) vs 6,077/47,814 (12.7%); RR 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.99); P = 0.02; I2 = 0%). More than 8% of participants dropped out. 'Worst-best case' and 'best-worst case' scenario analyses demonstrated that vitamin D could be associated with a dramatic increase or decrease in mortality. When different forms of vitamin D were assessed in separate analyses, only vitamin D3 decreased mortality (4,153/37,817 (11.0%) vs 4,340/38,110 (11.4%); RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.98); P = 0.002; I2 = 0%; 75,927 participants; 38 trials). Vitamin D2, alfacalcidol and calcitriol did not significantly affect mortality. A subgroup analysis of trials at high risk of bias suggested that vitamin D2 may even increase mortality, but this finding could be due to random errors. Trial sequential analysis supported our finding regarding vitamin D3, with the cumulative Z-score breaking the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit, corresponding to 150 people treated over five years to prevent one additional death. We did not observe any statistically significant differences in the effect of vitamin D on mortality in subgroup analyses of trials at low risk of bias compared with trials at high risk of bias; of trials using placebo compared with trials using no intervention in the control group; of trials with no risk of industry bias compared with trials with risk of industry bias; of trials assessing primary prevention compared with trials assessing secondary prevention; of trials including participants with vitamin D level below 20 ng/mL at entry compared with trials including participants with vitamin D levels equal to or greater than 20 ng/mL at entry; of trials including ambulatory participants compared with trials including institutionalised participants; of trials using concomitant calcium supplementation compared with trials without calcium; of trials using a dose below 800 IU per day compared with trials using doses above 800 IU per day; and of trials including only women compared with trials including both sexes or only men. Vitamin D3 statistically significantly decreased cancer mortality (RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98); P = 0.02; I2 = 0%; 44,492 participants; 4 trials). Vitamin D3 combined with calcium increased the risk of nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.34); P = 0.02; I2 = 0%; 42,876 participants; 4 trials). Alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased the risk of hypercalcaemia (RR 3.18 (95% CI 1.17 to 8.68); P = 0.02; I2 = 17%; 710 participants; 3 trials).\nAuthors' conclusions\nVitamin D3 seemed to decrease mortality in elderly people living independently or in institutional care. Vitamin D2, alfacalcidol and calcitriol had no statistically significant beneficial effects on mortality. Vitamin D3 combined with calcium increased nephrolithiasis. Both alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased hypercalcaemia. Because of risks of attrition bias originating from substantial dropout of participants and of outcome reporting bias due to a number of trials not reporting on mortality, as well as a number of other weaknesses in our evidence, further placebo-controlled randomised trials seem warranted.\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": "Numerous observational studies suggest that optimal vitamin D status may be associated with fewer occurrences of cancer and cardiovascular disease (such as heart attack or stroke). Vitamin D is synthesised in the skin as vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or is obtained from dietary sources or supplements as vitamin D3 or vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol). Our Cochrane systematic review from 2011, which analysed the influence of different forms of vitamin D on mortality, showed that vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) decreased mortality. This systematic review is now updated, and all included trials have been reassessed in accordance with improved Cochrane methodology, developed to enhance the validity of the conclusions."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7608
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEczema is a chronic skin disease characterised by dry skin, intense itching, inflammatory skin lesions, and has a considerable impact on quality of life. Moisturisation is an integral part of treatment, but it is unclear if moisturisers are effective.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of moisturisers for eczema.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases to December 2015: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and GREAT. We searched five trials registers and checked references of included and excluded studies for further relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials in people with eczema.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nMain results\nWe included 77 studies (mean duration: 6.7 weeks; 6603 participants, mean age: 18.6 years). Thirty-six studies were at high risk of bias, 34 at unclear risk, and seven at low risk. Twenty-four studies assessed our primary outcome of participant-assessed disease severity, 13 assessed satisfaction, and 41 assessed adverse events. Secondary outcomes included investigator-assessed disease severity (addressed in 65 studies), skin barrier function (29), flare prevention (16), quality of life (10), and corticosteroid use (eight). Adverse events reporting was limited (smarting, stinging, pruritus, erythema, folliculitis).\nSix studies evaluated moisturiser versus no moisturiser. Participant-assessed disease severity and satisfaction were not assessed. Moisturiser use yielded lower SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) scores than no moisturiser (3 studies, 276 participants; mean difference (MD) -2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.55 to -0.28), but the minimal important difference (MID) was unmet. Moisturiser use resulted in fewer flares (2 studies, 87 participants; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.70), prolonged time to flare (median: 180 versus 30 days), and reduced use of topical corticosteroids (2 studies, 222 participants; MD -9.30 g, 95% CI -15.3 to -3.27). There was no clear difference in adverse events (1 study, 173 participants; risk ratio (RR) 15.34, 95% CI 0.90 to 261.64). Evidence for these outcomes was low quality.\nWith Atopiclair, 174/232 participants reported improvement in disease severity versus 27/158 using vehicle (3 studies; RR 4.51, 95% CI 2.19 to 9.29). Atopiclair decreased itching (4 studies, 396 participants; MD -2.65, 95% CI -4.21 to -1.09) and achieved more frequent satisfaction (2 studies, 248 participants; RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.89), fewer flares (3 studies, 397 participants; RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31), and lower Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores (4 studies, 426 participants; MD -4.0, 95% CI -5.42 to -2.57), but the MID was unmet. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically different (4 studies, 430 participants; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.33). Evidence for these outcomes was moderate quality.\nParticipants reported skin improvement more frequently with urea-containing cream than placebo (1 study, 129 participants; RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.53; low-quality evidence), with equal satisfaction between the two groups (1 study, 38 participants; low-quality evidence). Urea-containing cream improved dryness (investigator-assessed) (1 study, 128 participants; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.71; moderate-quality evidence), and produced fewer flares (1 study, 44 participants; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92; low-quality evidence), but caused more adverse events (1 study, 129 participants; RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.34; moderate-quality evidence).\nThree studies assessed glycerol-containing moisturiser versus vehicle or placebo. More participants in the glycerol group noticed skin improvement (1 study, 134 participants; RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; moderate-quality evidence), which also included improved investigator-assessed SCORAD scores (1 study, 249 participants; MD -2.20, 95% CI -3.44 to -0.96; high-quality evidence), but the MID was unmet. Participant satisfaction was not addressed. The number of adverse events reported was not statistically significant (2 studies, 385 participants; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.19; moderate-quality evidence).\nFour studies investigated oat-containing moisturisers versus no treatment or vehicle. No significant differences between groups were reported for participant-assessed disease severity (1 study, 50 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.46; low-quality evidence), satisfaction (1 study, 50 participants; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.52; very low-quality evidence), or investigator-assessed disease severity (3 studies, 272 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.21; low-quality evidence). In the oat group, there were fewer flares (1 study, 43 participants; RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.7; low-quality evidence) and reduced use of topical corticosteroids (2 studies, 222 participants; MD -9.30g, 95% CI 15.3 to -3.27; low-quality evidence), but more adverse events (1 study, 173 participants; Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.26, 95% CI 1.76 to 29.92; low-quality evidence).\nWe compared all moisturisers to placebo, vehicle, or no moisturiser. Participants considered moisturisers to be more effective for reducing eczema (5 studies, 572 participants; RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.23; low-quality evidence) and itch (7 studies, 749 participants; SMD -1.10, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.38) than control. Participants in both treatment arms reported comparable satisfaction (3 studies, 296 participants; RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.26; low-quality evidence). Moisturisers led to lower investigator-assessed disease severity scores (12 studies, 1281 participants; SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.51; high-quality evidence) and fewer flares (6 studies, 607 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence), without a difference in adverse events (10 studies, 1275 participants; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; moderate-quality evidence).\nTopical active treatment combined with moisturiser was more effective than active treatment alone in reducing investigator-assessed disease severity scores (3 studies, 192 participants; SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.57; moderate-quality evidence) and flares (1 study, 105 participants; RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.93), and was preferred by participants (both low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in number of adverse events (1 study, 125 participants; RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.19; very low-quality evidence). Participant-assessed disease severity was not addressed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nMost moisturisers showed some beneficial effects; prolonging time to flare, reducing the number of flares and the amount of topical corticosteroids needed to achieve similar reductions in eczema severity. Moisturisers combined with active treatment gave better results than active treatment alone. We did not find reliable evidence that one moisturiser is better than another.\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": "Most moisturisers appeared to be effective. Twenty-four studies reported participant-assessed eczema severity. Only 13 studies assessed participant satisfaction with the moisturiser. Side effects (adverse events) were reported in 41 studies, although this information was often limited (mainly smarting, stinging, itch, redness). Most studies evaluated physician-assessed severity of eczema (65 studies). Other outcomes addressed were skin barrier function (29 studies), flare prevention (16), quality of life (10), and corticosteroid use (8).\nAccording to physicians, moisturisers reduced eczema severity compared with no moisturiser (3 studies), but the reduction was too small to be considered meaningful for patients. Moisturiser use resulted in fewer flares (2 studies), and reduced the need for topical corticosteroids (2 studies). Participant-assessed eczema severity and satisfaction were not evaluated. There was no difference in the number of adverse events reported.\nParticipants thought Atopiclair (containing glycyrrhetinic acid) was more than four times more effective at improving eczema-severity than the control (i.e. identical looking, but without glycyrrhetinic acid) (3 studies). However, physicians did not identify a meaningful difference for patients. Atopiclair led to greater reduction of itch (4 studies), more frequent participant satisfaction (2 studies), and fewer flares (3 studies). The number of reported adverse events was similar in each group.\nFour studies evaluated urea-containing cream. Participants using urea cream reported improvement more often than those using control (1 study). Satisfaction ratings in both groups were comparably positive (1 study). Urea-containing cream improved dryness more often (physician assessment) (1 study) and led to fewer flares (1 study), but with more adverse events reported.\nThree studies assessed glycerol-containing moisturiser versus control. More participants in the glycerol group considered their skin to be improved (1 study), as did physicians, but these differences were not meaningful for patients. Participant satisfaction was not addressed. There was no difference in the number of adverse events reported.\nFour studies investigated oat-containing moisturisers versus no treatment or control. No differences between groups were observed for participant-assessed improvement (1 study), participant satisfaction (1 study), or physician-assessed improvement (3 studies). However, the oat group had fewer flares (1 study), and a reduced need for topical corticosteroids (2 studies). Oat creams caused more adverse events.\nWhen we compared all moisturisers against no moisturiser or control, overall, participants considered moisturisers to be more than twice as effective in improving eczema than no moisturiser or control (5 studies), and more effective for itch (7 studies). Participants in both treatment arms reported comparable satisfaction (3 studies). According to physicians, moisturisers decreased eczema severity more than the control (12 studies), and led to fewer flares (6 studies). There were no differences between groups for the number of adverse events reported.\nAccording to physicians, topical corticosteroids were more effective at improving eczema when used with a moisturiser, rather than used alone (3 studies), and also reduced the number of flares (1 study). This combination was also favoured by participants, though participant-assessed disease severity was not addressed. There was no difference in the number of adverse events reported."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7609
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNeonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures.\nOptions for pain management include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of opioids in term or preterm neonates exposed to procedural pain, compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics or sedatives, other opioids, or the same opioid administered by a different route.\nSearch methods\nWe used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age (PMA) up to 46 weeks and 0 days exposed to procedural pain where opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no drug; 2) non-pharmacological intervention; 3) other analgesics or sedatives; 4) other opioids; or 5) the same opioid administered by a different route.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods and any harms. We used a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and their confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included 13 independent studies (enrolling 823 newborn infants): seven studies compared opioids to no treatment or placebo (the main comparison in this review), two studies to oral sweet solution or non-pharmacological intervention, and five studies (of which two were part of the same study) to other analgesics and sedatives. All studies were performed in a hospital setting.\nOpioids compared to placebo or no drug\nCompared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)/PIPP-Revised (PIPP-R) scale during the procedure (MD −2.58, 95% CI −3.12 to −2.03; 199 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) during the procedure (MD −1.97, 95% CI −2.46 to −1.48; 102 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in pain score assessed with the Douleur Aiguë du Nouveau-né (DAN) scale one to two hours after the procedure (MD −0.20, 95% CI −2.21 to 1.81; 42 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R scale up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD 0.14, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.45; 123 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) or one to two hours after the procedure (MD −0.83, 95% CI −2.42 to 0.75; 54 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.69; 172 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea compared to placebo (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 9.16; 199 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence): with one study reporting a concerning increase in severe apnea (RR 7.44, 95% CI 0.42 to 132.95; 31 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of hypotension (RR not estimable, risk difference 0.00, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.06; 88 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).\nOpioids compared to non-pharmacological intervention\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the Crying Requires oxygen Increased vital signs Expression Sleep (CRIES) scale during the procedure when compared to facilitated tucking (MD −4.62, 95% CI −6.38 to −2.86; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) or sensorial stimulation (MD 0.32, 95% CI −1.13 to 1.77; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported.\nOpioids compared to other analgesics or sedatives\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R during the procedure (MD −0.29, 95% CI −1.58 to 1.01; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD −1.10, 95% CI −2.82 to 0.62; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and one to two hours after the procedure (MD −0.17, 95% CI −2.22 to 1.88; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of apnea during (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.85 to 12.58; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and after the procedure (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.11 to 64.96; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and on hypotension (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.59; 204 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported.\nWe identified no studies comparing different opioids (e.g. morphine versus fentanyl) or different routes for administration of the same opioid (e.g. morphine enterally versus morphine intravenously).\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with PIPP/PIPP-R scale during the procedure; may reduce NIPS during the procedure; and may result in little to no difference in DAN one to two hours after the procedure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain assessed with other pain scores or at different time points. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia, hypotension or severe apnea. Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea. No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the NICU. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on any outcome when compared to non-pharmacological interventions or to other analgesics. We identified no studies comparing opioids to other opioids or comparing different routes of administration of the same opioid.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why are opioids given to manage pain during procedures in babies?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Babies (particularly in the first four weeks after birth) are frequently exposed to painful procedures during hospitalization. Similar to adults, they require uninterrupted pain management and control during these procedures. Opioids, a broad group of pain-relieving medications that work by interacting with opioid receptors in the body's cells, are commonly used in babies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7610
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople undergoing multimodal cancer treatment are at an increased risk of adverse events. Physical fitness significantly reduces following cancer treatment, which is related to poor postoperative outcome. Exercise training can stimulate skeletal muscle adaptations, such as increased mitochondrial content and improved oxygen uptake capacity may contribute to improved physical fitness.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of exercise interventions for people undergoing multimodal treatment for cancer, including surgery, on physical fitness, safety, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), fatigue, and postoperative outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched electronic databases of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and trial registries up to October 2018.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of exercise training with usual care, on physical fitness, safety, HRQoL, fatigue, and postoperative outcomes in people undergoing multimodal cancer treatment, including surgery.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, performed the data extraction, assessed the risk of bias, and rated the quality of the studies using Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. We pooled data for meta-analyses, where possible, and reported these as mean differences using the random-effects model.\nMain results\nEleven RCTs were identified involving 1067 participants; 568 were randomly allocated to an exercise intervention and 499 to a usual care control group. The majority of participants received treatment for breast cancer (73%). Due to the nature of the intervention, it was not possible to blind the participants or personnel delivering the intervention. The risk of detection bias was either high or unclear in some cases, whilst most other domains were rated as low risk. The included studies were of moderate to very low-certainty evidence. Pooled data demonstrated that exercise training may have little or no difference on physical fitness (VO2 max) compared to usual care (mean difference (MD) 0.05 L/min-1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.13; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 381 participants; low-certainty evidence). Included studies also showed in terms of adverse effects (safety), that it may be of benefit to exercise (8 studies, 507 participants; low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, exercise training probably made little or no difference on HRQoL (EORTC global health status subscale) compared to usual care (MD 2.29, 95% CI -1.06 to 5.65; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 472 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, exercise training probably reduces fatigue (multidimensional fatigue inventory) compared to usual care (MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.28; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 449 participants moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported postoperative outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe findings should be interpreted with caution in view of the low number of studies, the overall low-certainty of the combined evidence, and the variation in included cancer types (mainly people with breast cancer), treatments, exercise interventions, and outcomes. Exercise training may, or may not, confer modest benefit on physical fitness and HRQoL. Limited evidence suggests that exercise training is probably not harmful and probably reduces fatigue. These findings highlight the need for more RCTs, particularly in the neoadjuvant setting.\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 (certainty) of the evidence was moderate to very low for all of the outcomes, mainly because of the small number of studies and low number of participants, as well as study limitations."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7611
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTopically applied fluoride gels have been widely used as a caries-preventive intervention in dental surgeries and school-based programmes for over three decades. This updates the Cochrane review of fluoride gels for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents that was first published in 2002.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective is to determine the effectiveness and safety of fluoride gels in preventing dental caries in the child and adolescent population.\nThe secondary objectives are to examine whether the effect of fluoride gels is influenced by the following: initial level of caries severity; background exposure to fluoride in water (or salt), toothpastes, or reported fluoride sources other than the study option(s); mode of use (self applied under supervision or operator-applied), and whether there is a differential effect between the tray and toothbrush methods of application; frequency of use (times per year) or fluoride concentration (ppm F).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 5 November 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 5 November 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 November 2014), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 5 November 2014), LILACS and BBO via the BIREME Virtual Health Library (1980 to 5 November 2014), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 5 November 2014) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1945 to 5 November 2014). We undertook a search for ongoing trials on ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 5 November 2014. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication in the search of the electronic databases. We also searched reference lists of articles and contacted selected authors and manufacturers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials where blind outcome assessment was stated or indicated, comparing topically applied fluoride gel with placebo or no treatment in children up to 16 years. The frequency of application had to be at least once a year, and study duration at least one year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces in both permanent and primary teeth (D(M)FS and d(e/m)fs).\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment. We contacted study authors for additional information where required. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction (PF), that is, the difference in mean caries increments between the treatment and control groups expressed as a percentage of the mean increment in the control group. We performed random-effects meta-analyses where we could pool data. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity in random-effects metaregression analyses. We collected adverse effects information from the included trials.\nMain results\nWe included 28 trials (3 of which are new trials since the original review), involving 9140 children and adolescents. Most of these trials recruited participants from schools. Most of the studies (20) were at high risk of bias, with 8 at unclear risk of bias.\nTwenty-five trials (8479 participants) contributed data for meta-analysis on permanent tooth surfaces: the D(M)FS pooled prevented fraction (PF) estimate was 28% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 19% to 36%; P < 0.0001; with substantial heterogeneity (P < 0.0001; I2 = 82%); moderate quality evidence). Subgroup and metaregression analyses suggested no significant association between estimates of D(M)FS prevented fractions and the prespecified trial characteristics. However, the effect of fluoride gel varied according to the type of control group used, with D(M)FS PF on average being 17% (95% CI 3% to 31%; P = 0.018) higher in non-placebo-controlled trials (the reduction in caries was 38% (95% CI 24% to 52%; P < 0.0001, 2808 participants) for the 10 trials with no treatment as control group, and 21% (95% CI 15% to 28%; P < 0.0001, 5671 participants) for the 15 placebo-controlled trials. A funnel plot of the 25 trials in the D(M)FS PF meta-analysis indicated a relationship between prevented fraction and study precision, with an apparent lack of small studies with statistically significant large effects.\nThe d(e/m)fs pooled prevented fraction estimate for the three trials (1254 participants) that contributed data for the meta-analysis on primary teeth surfaces was 20% (95% CI 1% to 38%; P = 0.04; with no heterogeneity (P = 0.54; I2 = 0%); low quality evidence).\nThere was limited reporting of adverse events. Only two trials reported information on acute toxicity signs and symptoms during the application of the gel (risk difference 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; P = 0.36; with no heterogeneity (P = 36; I2 = 0%); 490 participants; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported information on tooth staining, mucosal irritation or allergic reaction.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe conclusions of this updated review remain the same as those when it was first published. There is moderate quality evidence of a large caries-inhibiting effect of fluoride gel in the permanent dentition. Information concerning the caries-preventive effect of fluoride gel on the primary dentition, which also shows a large effect, is based on low quality evidence from only three placebo-controlled trials. There is little information on adverse effects or on acceptability of treatment. Future trials should include assessment of potential adverse effects.\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": "Tooth decay is a significant health problem worldwide, affecting not only the vast majority of adults but also 60% to 90% of children. Levels of tooth decay vary between and within countries, but it is generally true that children in lower socioeconomic groups (measured by income, education and employment) have more tooth decay. Over time, untreated tooth decay causes progressive destruction of the tops of teeth (crowns); this is often accompanied by severe pain. Repairing and replacing decayed teeth is extremely costly in terms of time and money and is a major drain on the resources of healthcare systems.\nThe prevention of tooth decay in children and adolescents is regarded as a priority for dental services and is considered more cost-effective than its treatment. The use of fluoride, a mineral that prevents tooth decay, is widespread. As well as occurring naturally, fluoride is added to the water supply in some areas, and it is used in most toothpastes and in other products that are available to varying degrees worldwide. As an extra preventive measure there are other ways of applying fluoride directly to teeth, such as mouthrinses, lozenges, varnishes and gels.\nFluoride gel is usually applied by a dental professional, or self applied under supervision (depending on the age of the child), from once a year to several times a year. The gel is usually placed in a tray that the child or young person must keep in their mouth and bite into for about four minutes. It is not uncommon for young people to accidentally swallow some of the gel; feelings of sickness, vomiting, headache and stomach pain have been reported when too much is swallowed. Due to this risk of toxicity, fluoride gel treatment is not generally recommended for children less than six years old.\nThis review updates the Cochrane review of fluoride gels for preventing tooth decay in children and adolescents that was first published in 2002. We assessed the existing research for the Cochrane Oral Health Group, and the evidence is current up to 5 November 2014."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7612
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSeveral comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed including combinations of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors since the publication of a Cochrane Review on targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in 2008. This review represents an update of that original review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of targeted therapies for clear cell mRCC in patients naïve to systemic therapy.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on language or publication status. The date of the latest search was 18 June 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials, recruiting patients with clear cell mRCC naïve to previous systemic treatment. The index intervention was any TKI-based targeted therapy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and serious adverse events (SAEs); and the secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (QoL), response rate and minor adverse events (AEs). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 18 RCTs reporting on 11,590 participants randomised across 18 comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of select comparisons.\n1. Pazopanib versus sunitinib\nPazopanib may result in little to no difference in PFS as compared to sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.23; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 420 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 18 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 76 fewer to 38 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in OS compared to sunitinib (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; 1 study, 1110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 27 more OSs (95% CI 19 fewer to 70 more) per 1000 participants. Pazopanib may result in little to no difference in SAEs as compared to sunitinib (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09; 1 study, 1102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 734 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more participants experiencing SAEs (95% CI 44 fewer to 66 more) per 1000 participants.\n2. Sunitinib versus avelumab and axitinib\nSunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to avelumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.80; 1 study, 886 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 550 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 130 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 209 fewer to 53 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in OS (HR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79; 1 study, 886 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 890 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 29 fewer OSs (95% CI 78 fewer to 8 more) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may result in little to no difference in SAEs (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10; 1 study, 873 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 705 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 7 more SAEs (95% CI 49 fewer to 71 more) per 1000 participants.\n3. Sunitinib versus pembrolizumab and axitinib\nSunitinib probably reduces PFS as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.76; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 590 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this corresponds to 125 fewer participants experiencing PFS (95% CI 195 fewer to 56 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably reduces OS (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.65; 1 study, 861 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 880 per 1000 in this trial at 12 months, this would result in 96 fewer OSs (95% CI 167 fewer to 40 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib may reduce SAEs as compared to pembrolizumab plus axitinib (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 1 study, 854 participants; low-certainty evidence) although the CI includes the possibility of no effect. Based on the control event risk of 604 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 60 fewer SAEs (95% CI 115 fewer to 12 more) per 1000 participants.\n4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab\nSunitinib may reduce PFS as compared to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.52; 1 study, 847 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 280 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months' follow-up, this corresponds to 89 fewer PFSs (95% CI 136 fewer to 37 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib reduces OS (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.89; 1 study, 847 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk 600 per 1000 in this trial at 30 months, this would result in 140 fewer OSs (95% CI 219 fewer to 67 fewer) per 1000 participants. Sunitinib probably increases SAEs (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.53; 1 study, 1082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on the control event risk of 457 per 1000 in this trial, this corresponds to 169 more SAEs (95% CI 101 more to 242 more) per 1000 participants.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the low to high certainty of evidence, several combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be superior to single-agent targeted therapy in terms of PFS and OS, and with a favourable AE profile. Some single-agent targeted therapies demonstrated a similar or improved oncological outcome compared to others; minor differences were observed for AE within this group. The certainty of evidence was variable ranging from high to very low and all comparisons were based on single trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"4. Sunitinib versus nivolumab and ipilimumab (targeted therapy versus combinations of immunotherapy)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Sunitinib may result in more progression and serious unwanted effects compared to nivolumab and ipilimumab. Sunitinib results in more deaths compared to combinations."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7613
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe global burden of poor maternal, neonatal, and child health (MNCH) accounts for more than a quarter of healthy years of life lost worldwide. Targeted client communication (TCC) via mobile devices (MD) (TCCMD) may be a useful strategy to improve MNCH.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of TCC via MD on health behaviour, service use, health, and well-being for MNCH.\nSearch methods\nIn July/August 2017, we searched five databases including The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched two trial registries. A search update was carried out in July 2019 and potentially relevant studies are awaiting classification.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials that assessed TCC via MD to improve MNCH behaviour, service use, health, and well-being. Eligible comparators were usual care/no intervention, non-digital TCC, and digital non-targeted client communication.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, although data extraction and risk of bias assessments were carried out by one person only and cross-checked by a second.\nMain results\nWe included 27 trials (17,463 participants). Trial populations were: pregnant and postpartum women (11 trials conducted in low-, middle- or high-income countries (LMHIC); pregnant and postpartum women living with HIV (three trials carried out in one lower middle-income country); and parents of children under the age of five years (13 trials conducted in LMHIC). Most interventions (18) were delivered via text messages alone, one was delivered through voice calls only, and the rest were delivered through combinations of different communication channels, such as multimedia messages and voice calls.\nPregnant and postpartum women\nTCCMD versus standard care\nFor behaviours, TCCMD may increase exclusive breastfeeding in settings where rates of exclusive breastfeeding are less common (risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.06 to 1.59; low-certainty evidence), but have little or no effect in settings where almost all women breastfeed (low-certainty evidence). For use of health services, TCCMD may increase antenatal appointment attendance (odds ratio (OR) 1.54, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.96; low-certainty evidence); however, the CI encompasses both benefit and harm. The intervention may increase skilled attendants at birth in settings where a lack of skilled attendants at birth is common (though this differed by urban/rural residence), but may make no difference in settings where almost all women already have a skilled attendant at birth (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.94; low-certainty evidence). There were uncertain effects on maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity because the certainty of the evidence was assessed as very low.\nTCCMD versus non-digital TCC (e.g. pamphlets)\nTCCMD may have little or no effect on exclusive breastfeeding (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.07; low-certainty evidence). TCCMD may reduce 'any maternal health problem' (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.79) and 'any newborn health problem' (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.06) reported up to 10 days postpartum (low-certainty evidence), though the CI for the latter includes benefit and harm. The effect on health service use is unknown due to a lack of studies.\nTCCMD versus digital non-targeted communication\nNo studies reported behavioural, health, or well-being outcomes for this comparison. For use of health services, there are uncertain effects for the presence of a skilled attendant at birth due to very low-certainty evidence, and the intervention may make little or no difference to attendance for antenatal influenza vaccination (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.58), though the CI encompasses both benefit and harm (low-certainty evidence).\nPregnant and postpartum women living with HIV\nTCCMD versus standard care\nFor behaviours, TCCMD may make little or no difference to maternal and infant adherence to antiretroviral (ARV) therapy (low-certainty evidence). For health service use, TCC mobile telephone reminders may increase use of antenatal care slightly (mean difference (MD) 1.5, 95% CI –0.36 to 3.36; low-certainty evidence). The effect on the proportion of births occurring in a health facility is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. For health and well-being outcomes, there was an uncertain intervention effect on neonatal death or stillbirth, and infant HIV due to very low-certainty evidence. No studies reported on maternal mortality or morbidity.\nTCCMD versus non-digital TCC\nThe effect is unknown due to lack of studies reporting this comparison.\nTCCMD versus digital non-targeted communication\nTCCMD may increase infant ARV/prevention of mother-to-child transmission treatment adherence (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). The effect on other outcomes is unknown due to lack of studies.\nParents of children aged less than five years\nNo studies reported on correct treatment, nutritional, or health outcomes.\nTCCMD versus standard care\nBased on 10 trials, TCCMD may modestly increase health service use (vaccinations and HIV care) (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence); however, the effect estimates varied widely between studies.\nTCCMD versus non-digital TCC\nTCCMD may increase attendance for vaccinations (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.28; low-certainty evidence), and may make little or no difference to oral hygiene practices (low-certainty evidence).\nTCCMD versus digital non-targeted communication\nTCCMD may reduce attendance for vaccinations, but the CI encompasses both benefit and harm (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.20; low-certainty evidence).\nNo trials in any population reported data on unintended consequences.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe effect of TCCMD for most outcomes is uncertain. There may be improvements for some outcomes using targeted communication but these findings were of low certainty. High-quality, adequately powered trials and cost-effectiveness analyses are required to reliably ascertain the effects and relative benefits of TCCMD. Future studies should measure potential unintended consequences, such as partner violence or breaches of confidentiality.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What happens when parents of young children receive targeted messages by mobile device?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Compared to parents who get no messages\nMore parents may take their children to healthcare services such as vaccination appointments. But we do not know if the messages improve children's health or their health behaviour because the evidence is missing.\nCompared to parents who get messages sent in other ways\nSlightly more parents may take their children to vaccination appointments. The messages may make little or no difference to children's toothbrushing habits. We do not know if the messages affect children's health because the evidence is missing.\nCompared to parents who get untargeted messages\nFewer parents may take their children to vaccination appointments, but this evidence is mixed. We do not know if the messages affect children's health due to lack of evidence."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7614
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nConcerns regarding the safety and availability of transfused donor blood have prompted research into a range of techniques to minimise allogeneic transfusion requirements. Cell salvage (CS) describes the recovery of blood from the surgical field, either during or after surgery, for reinfusion back to the patient.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effectiveness of CS in minimising perioperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion and on other clinical outcomes in adults undergoing elective or non-urgent surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two clinical trials registers for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews from 2009 (date of previous search) to 19 January 2023, without restrictions on language or publication status.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs assessing the use of CS compared to no CS in adults (participants aged 18 or over, or using the study's definition of adult) undergoing elective (non-urgent) surgery only.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 106 RCTs, incorporating data from 14,528 participants, reported in studies conducted in 24 countries. Results were published between 1978 and 2021. We analysed all data according to a single comparison: CS versus no CS. We separated analyses by type of surgery.\nThe certainty of the evidence varied from very low certainty to high certainty. Reasons for downgrading the certainty included imprecision (small sample sizes below the optimal information size required to detect a difference, and wide confidence intervals), inconsistency (high statistical heterogeneity), and risk of bias (high risk from domains including sequence generation, blinding, and baseline imbalances).\nAggregate analysis (all surgeries combined: primary outcome only)\nVery low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there is a reduction in the risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.72; 82 RCTs, 12,520 participants).\nCancer: 2 RCTs (79 participants)\nVery low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for mortality, blood loss, infection, or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). There were no analysable data reported for the remaining outcomes.\nCardiovascular (vascular): 6 RCTs (384 participants)\nVery low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for most outcomes. No data were reported for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).\nCardiovascular (no bypass): 6 RCTs (372 participants)\nModerate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably a reduction in risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 3 RCTs, 169 participants).\nVery low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a difference for volume transfused, blood loss, mortality, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and hospital length of stay (LOS). There were no analysable data reported for thrombosis, DVT, pulmonary embolism (PE), and MACE.\nCardiovascular (with bypass): 29 RCTs (2936 participants)\nLow-certainty evidence suggests there may be a reduction in the risk of allogeneic transfusion with CS, and suggests there may be no difference in risk of infection and hospital LOS.\nVery low- to moderate-certainty evidence means we are uncertain whether there is a reduction in volume transfused because of CS, or if there is any difference for mortality, blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, wound complication, thrombosis, DVT, PE, MACE, and MI, and probably no difference in risk of stroke.\nObstetrics: 1 RCT (1356 participants)\nHigh-certainty evidence shows there is no difference between groups for mean volume of allogeneic blood transfused (mean difference (MD) -0.02 units, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 1 RCT, 1349 participants).\nLow-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference for risk of allogeneic transfusion. There were no analysable data reported for the remaining outcomes.\nOrthopaedic (hip only): 17 RCTs (2055 participants)\nVery low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if CS reduces the risk of allogeneic transfusion, and the volume transfused, or if there is any difference between groups for mortality, blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, prosthetic joint infection (PJI), thrombosis, DVT, PE, stroke, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for MACE and MI.\nOrthopaedic (knee only): 26 RCTs (2568 participants)\nVery low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if CS reduces the risk of allogeneic transfusion, and the volume transfused, and whether there is a difference for blood loss, re-operation for bleeding, infection, wound complication, PJI, DVT, PE, MI, MACE, stroke, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for mortality and thrombosis.\nOrthopaedic (spine only): 6 RCTs (404 participants)\nModerate-certainty evidence suggests there is probably a reduction in the need for allogeneic transfusion with CS (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; 3 RCTs, 194 participants).\nVery low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference for volume transfused, blood loss, infection, wound complication, and PE. There were no analysable data reported for mortality, re-operation for bleeding, PJI, thrombosis, DVT, MACE, MI, stroke, and hospital LOS.\nOrthopaedic (mixed): 14 RCTs (4374 participants)\nVery low- to low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there is a reduction in the need for allogeneic transfusion with CS, or if there is any difference between groups for volume transfused, mortality, blood loss, infection, wound complication, PJI, thrombosis, DVT, MI, and hospital LOS. There were no analysable data reported for re-operation for bleeding, MACE, and stroke.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn some types of elective surgery, cell salvage may reduce the need for and volume of allogeneic transfusion, alongside evidence of no difference in adverse events, when compared to no cell salvage. Further research is required to establish why other surgeries show no benefit from CS, through further analysis of the current evidence. More large RCTs in under-reported specialities are needed to expand the evidence base for exploring the impact of CS.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Cancer\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "2 studies (79 participants)\nInconclusive evidence means we are unsure of the impact of cell salvage."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7615
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHeavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is common in otherwise healthy women of reproductive age, and can affect physical health and quality of life. Surgery is usually a second-line treatment of HMB. Endometrial resection/ablation (EA/ER) to remove or ablate the endometrium is less invasive than hysterectomy. Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment and can be via open (laparotomy) approach, or via minimally invasive approaches (vaginally or laparoscopically). Each approach has its own advantages and risk profile.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of endometrial resection or ablation versus different routes of hysterectomy (open, minimally invasive hysterectomy, or unspecified route) for the treatment of HMB.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (July 2020), and reference lists, grey literature and trial registers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared techniques of endometrial resection/ablation with hysterectomy (by any technique) for the treatment of HMB in premenopausal women.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included 10 RCTs (1966 participants) comparing EA/ER to hysterectomy (open (abdominal), minimally invasive (laparoscopic or vaginal), or unspecified (or at surgeon's discretion) route of hysterectomy). The results were rated as moderate-, low- and very low-certainty evidence.\nEndometrial resection/ablation versus open hysterectomy\nWe found two trials. Women having EA/ER are probably less likely to perceive an improvement in HMB compared to women having open hysterectomy (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.95; 2 studies, 247 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably have a 13% risk of requiring further surgery for treatment failure (compared to 0 on the open hysterectomy group; 2 studies, 247 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Both treatments probably lead to similar quality of life at two years (mean difference (MD) –5.30, 95% CI –11.90 to 1.30; 1 study, 155 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and satisfaction rate at one year (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 1 study, 194 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.20; 2 studies, 247 women; low-certainty evidence). EA/ER probably reduces time to return to normal activity compared to open hysterectomy (MD –21.00 days, 95% CI –24.78 to –17.22; 1 study, 197 women; moderate-certainty evidence).\nEndometrial resection/ablation versus minimally invasive hysterectomy\nWe found five trials. The proportion of women with perception of improvement in HMB at two years may be similar between groups (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04; 1 study, 79 women; low-certainty evidence). Blood loss may be higher in the EA/ER group when assessed using the Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (MD 44.00, 95% CI 36.09 to 51.91; 1 study, 68 women; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life is probably lower in the EA/ER group compared to the minimally invasive hysterectomy group at two years according to the 36-item Short Form (SF-36) (MD –10.71, 95% CI –15.11 to –6.30; 2 studies, 145 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; 1 study, 616 women; moderate-certainty evidence). EA/ER probably increases the risk of further surgery for HMB compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy (RR 7.70, 95% CI 2.54 to 23.32; 4 studies, 922 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and treatments probably have similar rates of any serious adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.59; 4 studies, 809 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with EA/ER are probably less likely to be satisfied with treatment at one year (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; 1 study, 558 women; moderate-certainty evidence). We were unable to pool data for time to return to work or normal life because of extreme heterogeneity (99%); however, the three studies reporting this all had the same direction of effect favouring EA/ER.\nEndometrial resection/ablation versus unspecified route of hysterectomy\nWe found three trials. EA/ER may lead to a lower perception of improvement in HMB compared to unspecified route of hysterectomy (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.95; 2 studies, 403 women; low-certainty evidence). Although EA/ER may lead to similar quality of life using the SF-36 General Health Perception at two years' follow-up (MD –1.90, 95% CI –8.67 to 4.87; 1 study, 209 women; low-certainty evidence), the proportion of women with improvement in general health at one year may be lower (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.95; 1 study, 185 women; low-certainty evidence). EA/ER probably has a risk of 5.4% of requiring further surgery for treatment failure (compared to 0 with total hysterectomy; 2 studies, 374 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and reduces the proportion of women with any serious adverse event (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.80; 2 studies, 374 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Both treatments probably lead to a similar satisfaction rate at one year' follow-up (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04; 3 studies, 545 women; moderate-certainty evidence). EA/ER may lead to shorter time to return to normal activity (MD –18.90 days, 95% CI –24.63 to –13.17; 1 study, 172 women; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEndometrial resection/ablation (EA/ER) offers an alternative to hysterectomy as a surgical treatment for HMB.\nEffectiveness varies with EA/ER compared to different hysterectomy approaches. The perception of improvement in HMB with EA/ER is probably lower compared to open and unspecified route of hysterectomy, but may be similar compared to minimally invasive. Quality of life with EA/ER is probably similar to open and unspecified route of hysterectomy, but lower compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy. Further surgery for treatment failure is probably more likely with EA/ER compared to all routes of hysterectomy.\nSatisfaction rates also vary. EA/ER probably has a similar rate of satisfaction compared to open and unspecified route of hysterectomy, but a lower rate of satisfaction compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy. The proportion having any serious adverse event appears similar in all groups, but specific adverse events did reported difference between EA/ER and different routes. We were unable to draw conclusions about the time to return to normal activity, but the direction of effect suggests it is likely to be shorter with EA/ER.\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": "Surgical treatments for HMB include: endometrial resection or ablation (removal or destruction of the endometrium (inside lining) of the uterus (womb)) and hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus). Hysterectomy can be performed by different routes: by a surgical cut to the abdomen (open), by a minimally invasive procedure that can be by the vagina, or by laparoscopy (a 'keyhole' operation that involves very small surgical cuts to the abdomen). Hysterectomy is effective in permanently stopping HMB, but it halts fertility and is associated with the risks of major surgery, including infection and blood loss. Endometrial resection/ablation is performed by the vagina and cervix (entrance to the uterus)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7616
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPartnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear.\nIn this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care.\nFor the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity.\nThis QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.\nObjectives\n1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.\n2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care.\nSelection criteria\nWe included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.\nData collection and analysis\nFollowing completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach.\nThe Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles.\nMain results\nWe found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs).\nEach of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories.\nContextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence).\nConsumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence).\nPartnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers’ involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers’ professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence)\nPerceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence).\nPerceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence).\nBest practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSuccessful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Contextual factors influencing partnerships\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "government policy, processes, funding, and the organisational context of the health service influenced partnering."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7617
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCytomegalovirus (CMV) is a virus that usually affects people with reduced immunity. In recent years, this virus has been thought to cause repeated inflammation in the eye, in otherwise healthy people. This form of inflammation can cause damage to the cornea (the outer layer of the eye) or to the optic nerve by causing secondary glaucoma, or to both, leading to visual loss.\nObjectives\nOur primary objective was to assess the effects of drug therapies for the treatment of CMV-associated anterior segment inflammation.\nOur secondary objective was to determine the optimal dose and duration of treatment with respect to recurrence and adverse effects.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 21 March 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 21 March 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 21 March 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 21 March 2017, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 21 March 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. Two review authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts.\nSelection criteria\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the management of CMV-associated anterior segment inflammation.\nData collection and analysis\nWe planned to have two review authors independently extract data from reports of included studies and analyse data based on methods expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe did not identify any RCTs that met our inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is currently no good-quality evidence on the management of CMV-associated anterior segment inflammation. Ideally, a well-designed RCT is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of different anti-CMV medications as well as the optimal dose and duration.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The aim of this Cochrane review was to find out what is the best way to treat inflammation of the eye due to cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. Cochrane review authors searched for all relevant studies (randomised controlled trials) but did not find any studies that could be included in the review."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7618
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnalgesic medication is the most frequently prescribed treatment for low back pain (LBP), of which paracetamol (acetaminophen) is recommended as the first choice medication. However, there is uncertainty about the efficacy of paracetamol for LBP.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for non-specific LBP.\nSearch methods\nWe conducted searches on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which includes the Back and Neck Review Group trials register), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, and IPA from their inception to 7 August 2015. We also searched the reference lists of eligible papers and trial registry websites (WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov).\nSelection criteria\nWe only considered randomised trials comparing the efficacy of paracetamol with placebo for non-specific LBP. The primary outcomes were pain and disability. We also investigated quality of life, function, adverse effects, global impression of recovery, sleep quality, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication as secondary outcomes.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed the data extraction and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We also evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We converted scales for pain intensity to a common 0 to 100 scale. We quantified treatment effects using mean difference for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. We used effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals as a measure of treatment effect for the primary outcomes. When the treatment effects were smaller than 9 points on a 0 to 100 scale, we considered the effect as small and not clinically important.\nMain results\nOur searches retrieved 4449 records, of which two trials were included in the review (n=1785). For acute LBP, there is high-quality evidence for no difference between paracetamol (4 g per day) and placebo at 1 week (immediate term), 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks (short term) for the primary outcomes. There is high-quality evidence that paracetamol has no effect on quality of life, function, global impression of recovery, and sleep quality for all included time periods. There were also no significant differences between paracetamol and placebo for adverse events, patient adherence, or use of rescue medication. No trials were identified evaluating patients with subacute or chronic LBP.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that paracetamol does not produce better outcomes than placebo for people with acute LBP.\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": "Paracetamol is one of the most commonly prescribed medicines for people with LBP, and it is recommended in the guidelines that are issued to help doctors manage different illnesses. However, recent evidence has called into question how effective it is."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7619
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDental caries remains a major public health problem in most industrialised countries, affecting 60% to 90% of schoolchildren and the vast majority of adults. Milk may provide a relatively cost-effective vehicle for fluoride delivery in the prevention of dental caries. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of milk fluoridation for preventing dental caries at a community level.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (inception to November 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to November 2014) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to November 2014). We also searched the U.S. National Institutes of Health Trials Register (https://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch) for ongoing trials. We did not place any restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs), with an intervention and follow-up period of at least two years, comparing fluoridated milk with non-fluoridated milk.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trial risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included one unpublished RCT, randomising 180 children aged three years at study commencement. The setting was nursery schools in an area with high prevalence of dental caries and a low level of fluoride in drinking water. Data from 166 participants were available for analysis. The study carried a high risk of bias. After three years, there was a reduction of caries in permanent teeth (mean difference (MD) −0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.24 to −0.02) and in primary teeth (MD −1.14, 95% CI −1.86 to −0.42), as measured by the decayed, missing and filled teeth index (DMFT for permanent teeth and dmft for primary teeth). For primary teeth, this is a substantial reduction, equivalent to a prevented fraction of 31%. For permanent teeth, the disease level was very low in the study, resulting in a small absolute effect size. The included study did not report any other outcomes of interest for this review (adverse events, dental pain, antibiotic use or requirement for general anaesthesia due to dental procedures).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low-quality evidence to suggest fluoridated milk may be beneficial to schoolchildren, contributing to a substantial reduction in dental caries in primary teeth. Due to the low quality of the evidence, further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. There was only one relatively small study, which had important methodological limitations on the data for the effectiveness in reducing caries. Furthermore, there was no information about the potential harms of the intervention. Additional RCTs of high quality are needed before we can draw definitive conclusions about the benefits of milk fluoridation.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Authors from Cochrane Oral Health reviewed existing studies to find all available evidence up to November 2014. We searched scientific databases for clinical trials testing the effects of fluoridated milk compared with non-fluoridated milk. Treatment had to be used and monitored for a minimum of two years."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7620
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nColorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide. A diagnosis of colorectal cancer and subsequent treatment can adversely affect an individuals physical and mental health. Benefits of physical activity interventions in alleviating treatment side effects have been demonstrated in other cancer populations. Given that regular physical activity can decrease the risk of colorectal cancer, and cardiovascular fitness is a strong predictor of all-cause and cancer mortality risk, physical activity interventions may have a role to play in the colorectal cancer control continuum. Evidence of the efficacy of physical activity interventions in this population remains unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of physical activity interventions on the disease-related physical and mental health of individuals diagnosed with non-advanced colorectal cancer, staged as T1-4 N0-2 M0, treated surgically or with neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy (i.e. chemotherapy, radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy), or both.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 6), along with OVID MEDLINE, six other databases and four trial registries with no language or date restrictions. We screened reference lists of relevant publications and handsearched meeting abstracts and conference proceedings of relevant organisations for additional relevant studies. All searches were completed between 6 June and 14 June 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised control trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs comparing physical activity interventions, to usual care or no physical activity intervention in adults with non-advanced colorectal cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, performed the data extraction, assessed the risk of bias and rated the quality of the studies using GRADE criteria. We pooled data for meta-analyses by length of follow-up, reported as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects wherever possible, or the fixed-effect model, where appropriate. If a meta-analysis was not possible, we synthesised studies narratively.\nMain results\nWe identified 16 RCTs, involving 992 participants; 524 were allocated to a physical activity intervention group and 468 to a usual care control group. The mean age of participants ranged between 51 and 69 years. Ten studies included participants who had finished active treatment, two studies included participants who were receiving active treatment, two studies included both those receiving and finished active treatment. It was unclear whether participants were receiving or finished treatment in two studies. Type, setting and duration of physical activity intervention varied between trials. Three studies opted for supervised interventions, five for home-based self-directed interventions and seven studies opted for a combination of supervised and self-directed programmes. One study did not report the intervention setting. The most common intervention duration was 12 weeks (7 studies). Type of physical activity included walking, cycling, resistance exercise, yoga and core stabilisation exercise.\nMost of the uncertainty in judging study bias came from a lack of clarity around allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors. Blinding of participants and personnel was not possible. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate overall. We did not pool physical function results at immediate-term follow-up due to considerable variation in results and inconsistency of direction of effect. We are uncertain whether physical activity interventions improve physical function compared with usual care. We found no evidence of effect of physical activity interventions compared to usual care on disease-related mental health (anxiety: SMD -0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.40 to 0.18; 4 studies, 198 participants; I2 = 0%; and depression: SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.08; 4 studies, 198 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) at short- or medium-term follow-up. Seven studies reported on adverse events. We did not pool adverse events due to inconsistency in reporting and measurement. We found no evidence of serious adverse events in the intervention or usual care groups. Minor adverse events, such as neck, back and muscle pain were most commonly reported. No studies reported on overall survival or recurrence-free survival and no studies assessed outcomes at long-term follow-up\nWe found evidence of positive effects of physical activity interventions on the aerobic fitness component of physical fitness (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.29; 7 studies, 295; I2 = 68%; low-quality evidence), cancer-related fatigue (MD 2.16, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.15; 6 studies, 230 participants; I2 = 18%; low-quality evidence) and health-related quality of life (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.62; 6 studies, 230 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) at immediate-term follow-up. These positive effects were also observed at short-term follow-up but not medium-term follow-up. Only three studies reported medium-term follow-up for cancer-related fatigue and health-related quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe findings of this review should be interpreted with caution due to the low number of studies included and the quality of the evidence. We are uncertain whether physical activity interventions improve physical function. Physical activity interventions may have no effect on disease-related mental health. Physical activity interventions may be beneficial for aerobic fitness, cancer-related fatigue and health-related quality of life up to six months follow-up. Where reported, adverse events were generally minor. Adequately powered RCTs of high methodological quality with longer-term follow-up are required to assess the effect of physical activity interventions on the disease-related physical and mental health and on survival of people with non-advanced colorectal cancer. Adverse events should be adequately reported.\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": "Bowel cancer is the third most common cancer diagnosed worldwide. Being diagnosed and receiving treatment for bowel cancer can have a negative impact on a person's physical and mental health. Side effects include reduced fitness levels and increased tiredness. People are also at risk of their cancer returning after treatment and this can cause fear and worry. Research on physical activity programmes in other cancer populations has shown benefits in reducing side effects of treatment. Given that people who are active have a lower chance of developing bowel cancer, physical activity may be beneficial for those with a bowel cancer diagnosis, but the research is not yet clear."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7621
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nParaproteinaemic neuropathy refers to those neuropathies associated with a monoclonal gammopathy or paraprotein. The most common of these present with a chronic, predominantly sensory, symmetrical neuropathy, similar to chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) but with relatively more sensory involvement, both clinically and neurophysiologically. The optimal treatment for neuropathies associated with IgG and IgA monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance is not known. This is an update of a review first published in 2007.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of any treatment for IgG or IgA paraproteinaemic peripheral neuropathy.\nSearch methods\nOn 18 January 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. We also checked bibliographies for controlled trials of treatments for IgG or IgA paraproteinaemic peripheral neuropathy. We checked clinical trials registries for ongoing studies in November 2014.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs using any treatment for IgG or IgA paraproteinaemic peripheral neuropathy. We excluded people with IgM paraproteins. We excluded people where the monoclonal gammopathy was considered secondary to an underlying disorder. We included participants of any age with a diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance with a paraprotein of the IgG or IgA class and a neuropathy. Included participants were not required to fulfil specific electrophysiological diagnostic criteria.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology to select studies, extract data and analyse results. One trial author provided additional data and clarification.\nMain results\nWe identified one RCT, with 18 participants, that fulfilled the predetermined inclusion criteria. The trial compared plasma exchange to sham plasma exchange in participants with IgG or IgA paraproteinaemic neuropathy over a three-week follow-up period. We identified four other studies but these were not RCTs or quasi-RCTs. The included RCT did not report our predefined primary outcome measure, change in disability six months after randomisation. The trial revealed a modest benefit of plasma exchange in the weakness component of the Neuropathy Disability Score (NDS, now the Neuropathy Impairment Score); the mean improvement with plasma exchange was 17 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.2 to 28.8 points) versus 1 point (95% CI -7.7 to 9.7 points) in the sham exchange group at three weeks' follow-up (mean difference (MD) 16.00; 95% CI 1.37 to 30.63, low quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall NDS (MD 18.00; 95% CI -2.03 to 38.03, low quality evidence), vibration thresholds or neurophysiological indices. Adverse events were not reported. The trial was at low risk of bias overall, although limitations of trial size and duration reduce the quality of the evidence in support of its conclusions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence from RCTs for the treatment of IgG or IgA paraproteinaemic neuropathy is currently inadequate. More RCTs of treatments are required. These should have adequate follow-up periods and contain larger numbers of participants, perhaps through multicentre collaboration, considering the relative infrequency of this condition. Observational or open trial data provide limited support for the use of treatments such as plasma exchange, cyclophosphamide combined with prednisolone, intravenous immunoglobulin, and corticosteroids. These interventions show potential therapeutic promise but the potential benefits must be weighed against adverse effects. Their optimal use and the long-term benefits need to be considered and validated with well-designed RCTs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Paraproteinaemic neuropathy refers to those neuropathies associated with a paraprotein (an abnormal antibody or immunoglobulin (Ig) present in relative excess in the blood). Paraproteins come from a group of blood disorders called monoclonal gammopathies. If the paraprotein is present without evidence of any underlying disease, this is known as a monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance (MGUS). This review looked at the treatments for neuropathy associated with and possibly caused by IgG and IgA paraproteins. The optimal treatment is not known. Treatments that act on the immune system such as plasma exchange, corticosteroids or intravenous immunoglobulin have been examined in nonrandomised studies of people with IgG and IgA paraproteinaemic neuropathy."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7622
|
[
{
"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: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found that paracetamol may make little or no difference for the number of deaths (paracetamol 35.2% (potentially causing between 7.1% fewer deaths up to 3.4% more deaths) versus placebo 37.4%, low certainty evidence). Paracetamol may make little to no difference in hearing loss (paracetamol 19.6% versus placebo 18.8%, low certainty evidence); neurological sequelae other than hearing loss (paracetamol 32.1% versus placebo 20.6%, low certainty evidence); or severe hearing loss (paracetamol 11.7% versus placebo 12.2%, low certainty evidence). Paracetamol may lead to slightly more short-term neurological sequelae other than hearing loss (paracetamol 15.7% versus placebo 7.9%, low certainty evidence) and slightly more long-term neurological sequelae other than hearing loss (paracetamol 8.8% versus placebo 3.8%, low certainty evidence). No side effects were reported.\nThe effect of immunoglobulins, heparin, pentoxifylline, and a mixture of succinic acid, inosine, nicotinamide, and riboflavin mononucleotide on number of deaths is uncertain due to the very low certainty of the evidence. No side effects were reported for immunoglobulins (very low certainty evidence), and a 3.3% rate of allergic reactions was reported in patients 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."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7623
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFibromyalgia is characterised by persistent, widespread pain; sleep problems; and fatigue. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is the delivery of pulsed electrical currents across the intact surface of the skin to stimulate peripheral nerves and is used extensively to manage painful conditions. TENS is inexpensive, safe, and can be self-administered. TENS reduces pain during movement in some people so it may be a useful adjunct to assist participation in exercise and activities of daily living. To date, there has been only one systematic review in 2012 which included TENS, amongst other treatments, for fibromyalgia, and the authors concluded that TENS was not effective.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of TENS alone or added to usual care (including exercise) compared with placebo (sham) TENS; no treatment; exercise alone; or other treatment including medication, electroacupuncture, warmth therapy, or hydrotherapy for fibromyalgia in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases up to 18 January 2017: CENTRAL (CRSO); MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); CINAHL (EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); LILACS; PEDRO; Web of Science (ISI); AMED (Ovid); and SPORTDiscus (EBSCO). We also searched three trial registries. There were no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised trials of TENS treatment for pain associated with fibromyalgia in adults. We included cross-over and parallel-group trial designs. We included studies that evaluated TENS administered using non-invasive techniques at intensities that produced perceptible TENS sensations during stimulation at either the site of pain or over nerve bundles proximal (or near) to the site of pain. We included TENS administered as a sole treatment or TENS in combination with other treatments, and TENS given as a single treatment or as a course of treatments.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently determined study eligibility by assessing each record and reaching agreement by discussion. A third review author acted as arbiter. We did not anonymise the records of studies before assessment. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies before entering information into a 'Characteristics of included studies' table. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 30% or greater or 50% or greater, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). We assessed the evidence using GRADE and added 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included eight studies (seven RCTs, one quasi-RCT, 315 adults (299 women), aged 18 to 75 years): six used a parallel-group design and two used a cross-over design. Sample sizes of intervention arms were five to 43 participants.\nTwo studies, one of which was a cross-over design, compared TENS with placebo TENS (82 participants), one study compared TENS with no treatment (43 participants), and four studies compared TENS with other treatments (medication (two studies, 74 participants), electroacupuncture (one study, 44 participants), superficial warmth (one cross-over study, 32 participants), and hydrotherapy (one study, 10 participants)). Two studies compared TENS plus exercise with exercise alone (98 participants, 49 per treatment arm). None of the studies measured participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater or PGIC. Overall, the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and in particular all were at high risk of bias for sample size.\nOnly one study (14 participants) measured the primary outcome participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater. Thirty percent achieved 30% or greater reduction in pain with TENS and exercise compared with 13% with exercise alone. One study found 10/28 participants reported pain relief of 25% or greater with TENS compared with 10/24 participants using superficial warmth (42 °C). We judged that statistical pooling was not possible because there were insufficient data and outcomes were not homogeneous.\nThere were no data for the primary outcomes participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 50% or greater and PGIC.\nThere was a paucity of data for secondary outcomes. One pilot cross-over study of 43 participants found that the mean (95% confidence intervals (CI)) decrease in pain intensity on movement (100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS)) during one 30-minute treatment was 11.1 mm (95% CI 5.9 to 16.3) for TENS and 2.3 mm (95% CI 2.4 to 7.7) for placebo TENS. There were no significant differences between TENS and placebo for pain at rest. One parallel group study of 39 participants found that mean ± standard deviation (SD) pain intensity (100-mm VAS) decreased from 85 ± 20 mm at baseline to 43 ± 20 mm after one week of dual-site TENS; decreased from 85 ± 10 mm at baseline to 60 ± 10 mm after single-site TENS; and decreased from 82 ± 20 mm at baseline to 80 ± 20 mm after one week of placebo TENS. The authors of seven studies concluded that TENS relieved pain but the findings of single small studies are unlikely to be correct.\nOne study found clinically important improvements in Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) subscales for work performance, fatigue, stiffness, anxiety, and depression for TENS with exercise compared with exercise alone. One study found no additional improvements in FIQ scores when TENS was added to the first three weeks of a 12-week supervised exercise programme.\nNo serious adverse events were reported in any of the studies although there were reports of TENS causing minor discomfort in a total of 3 participants.\nThe quality of evidence was very low. We downgraded the GRADE rating mostly due to a lack of data; therefore, we have little confidence in the effect estimates where available.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was insufficient high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of TENS for fibromyalgia. We found a small number of inadequately powered studies with incomplete reporting of methodologies and treatment interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Fibromyalgia is a long-term medical condition that is characterised by long-lasting widespread pain throughout the body. TENS is a treatment that involves putting pulsed electrical currents across the surface of the skin using two or four electrodes. It is used to manage painful conditions. TENS is inexpensive, can be self-administered by people with fibromyalgia, and is not associated with any particular side effects. TENS reduces pain during movement so it may be useful in addition to other treatments to help people carry on their normal lives."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7624
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStanding up from a seated position is one of the most frequently performed functional tasks, is an essential pre-requisite to walking and is important for independent living and preventing falls. Following stroke, patients can experience a number of problems relating to the ability to sit-to-stand independently.\nObjectives\nTo review the evidence of effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving sit-to-stand ability after stroke. The primary objectives were to determine (1) the effect of interventions that alter the starting posture (including chair height, foot position, hand rests) on ability to sit-to-stand independently; and (2) the effect of rehabilitation interventions (such as repetitive practice and exercise programmes) on ability to sit-to-stand independently. The secondary objectives were to determine the effects of interventions aimed at improving ability to sit-to-stand on: (1) time taken to sit-to-stand; (2) symmetry of weight distribution during sit-to-stand; (3) peak vertical ground reaction forces during sit-to-stand; (4) lateral movement of centre of pressure during sit-to-stand; and (5) incidence of falls.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (June 2013), CENTRAL (2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1950 to June 2013), EMBASE (1980 to June 2013), CINAHL (1982 to June 2013), AMED (1985 to June 2013) and six additional databases. We also searched reference lists and trials registers and contacted experts.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials in adults after stroke where: the intervention aimed to affect the ability to sit-to-stand by altering the posture of the patient, or the design of the chair; stated that the aim of the intervention was to improve the ability to sit-to-stand; or the intervention involved exercises that included repeated practice of the movement of sit-to-stand (task-specific practice of rising to stand).\nThe primary outcome of interest was the ability to sit-to-stand independently. Secondary outcomes included time taken to sit-to-stand, measures of lateral symmetry during sit-to-stand, incidence of falls and general functional ability scores.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened abstracts, extracted data and appraised trials. We undertook an assessment of methodological quality for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors and method of dealing with missing data.\nMain results\nThirteen studies (603 participants) met the inclusion criteria for this review, and data from 11 of these studies were included within meta-analyses. Twelve of the 13 included studies investigated rehabilitation interventions; one (nine participants) investigated the effect of altered starting posture for sit-to-stand. We judged only four studies to be at low risk of bias for all methodological parameters assessed. The majority of randomised controlled trials included participants who were already able to sit-to-stand or walk independently.\nOnly one study (48 participants), which we judged to be at high risk of bias, reported our primary outcome of interest, ability to sit-to-stand independently, and found that training increased the odds of achieving independent sit-to-stand compared with control (odds ratio (OR) 4.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43 to 16.50, very low quality evidence).\nInterventions or training for sit-to-stand improved the time taken to sit-to-stand and the lateral symmetry (weight distribution between the legs) during sit-to-stand (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.34; 95% CI -0.62 to -0.06, seven studies, 335 participants; and SMD 0.85; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33, five studies, 105 participants respectively, both moderate quality evidence). These improvements are maintained at long-term follow-up.\nFew trials assessing the effect of sit-to-stand training on peak vertical ground reaction force (one study, 54 participants) and functional ability (two studies, 196 participants) were identified, providing very low and low quality evidence respectively.\nThe effect of sit-to-stand training on number of falls was imprecise, demonstrating no benefit or harm (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.22, five studies, 319 participants, low quality evidence). We judged the majority of studies that assessed falls to be at high risk of bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review has found insufficient evidence relating to our primary outcome of ability to sit-to-stand independently to reach any generalisable conclusions. This review has found moderate quality evidence that interventions to improve sit-to-stand may have a beneficial effect on time taken to sit-to-stand and lateral symmetry during sit-to-stand, in the population of people with stroke who were already able to sit-to-stand independently. There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions relating to the effect of interventions to improve sit-to-stand on peak vertical ground reaction force, functional ability and falls. This review adds to a growing body of evidence that repetitive task-specific training is beneficial for outcomes in people receiving rehabilitation following stroke.\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": "Rising to stand from sitting is one of the most frequently performed tasks of daily living and is something people need to be able to do to start walking. After a stroke, people may have difficulty rising to stand from sitting. This review looked at the effect of training or exercises on ability to rise to stand, and also aimed to look at the effect of different chair positions that might help people rise to stand."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7625
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDrowning is responsible for an estimated 320,000 deaths a year, and over 90% of drowning mortality occurs in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs), with peak drowning rates among children aged 1 to 4 years. In this age group, mortality due to drowning is particularly common in rural settings and about 75% of drowning accidents happen in natural bodies of water close to the home. Providing adequate child supervision can protect children from drowning, and organized formal day care programs could offer a way to achieve this.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\n• To assess the effects of day care programs for children under 6 years of age on drowning-related mortality or morbidity, or on total drowning accidents (fatal and non-fatal), in LMICs, compared to no day care programs or other drowning prevention interventions\nSecondary objectives\n• To assess the effects of day care programs in LMICs for children under 6 years of age on unsafe water exposure\n• To assess safety within these programs (e.g. transmission of infection within day care, physical or sexual abuse of children within day care)\n• To assess the incidence of unintentional injury within these programs\n• To describe the cost-effectiveness of such programs, in relation to averted drowning-related mortality or morbidity\nSearch methods\nOn November 23, 2019, and for an update on August 18, 2020, we searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CENTRAL, ERIC, and CINAHL, as well as two trial registries. On December 16, 2019, and for an update on February 9, 2021, we searched 12 other resources, including websites of organizations that develop programs targeted to children.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized, quasi-randomized, and non-randomized controlled studies (with explicitly listed specific study design features) that implemented formal day care programs as a single program or combined with additional out-of-day care components (such as educational activities aimed at preventing injury or drowning or early childhood development activities) for children of preschool age (below 6 years of age) in LMICs for comparison with no such programs or with other drowning prevention interventions. Studies had to report at least one outcome related to drowning or injury prevention for the children enrolled.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed study selection and data extraction, as well as risk of bias and GRADE assessment.\nMain results\nTwo non-randomized observational studies, conducted in rural Bangladesh, involving a total of 252,631 participants, met the inclusion criteria for this review. One of these studies compared a formal day care program combined with parent education, playpens provided to parents, and community-based activities as additional out-of-day care components versus no such program. Overall we assessed this study to be at moderate risk of bias (moderate risk of bias due to confounding, low risk of bias for other domains). This study showed that implementation of a formal day care program combined with parent education, provision of playpens to parents, and community-based activities, in a rural area with a high drowning incidence, likely reduces the risk of death from drowning over the study period of 4 years and 8 months compared to no day care program (hazard ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.06 to 0.58; 1 study, 136,577 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Drowning morbidity (non-fatal drowning resulting in complications), total drowning (fatal and non-fatal), unsafe water exposure, and program safety (e.g. transmission of infection within day care, physical or sexual abuse of children within day care) were not reported, nor was the incidence of other unintentional injuries. Cost-effectiveness was reported as 812 USD (95% CI 589 to 1777) per disability-adjusted life-year averted as a consequence of drowning (moderate-certainty evidence). The second study compared day care programs with or without playpens provided to parents as an additional component versus only playpens provided to parents as an alternative drowning prevention intervention. Overall we assessed the study to be at critical risk of bias because we judged bias due to confounding to be at critical risk. As the certainty of evidence was very low, we are uncertain about the effects on drowning mortality rate of implementing a day care program compared to providing playpens (rate ratio 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41; 1 study; 76,575 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Likewise, we are uncertain about the effects of a day care program with playpens provided as an additional component versus playpens provided alone (rate ratio 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.12; 1 study, 45,460 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The other outcomes of interest - drowning morbidity, total drowning, unsafe water exposure, program safety, incidence of other unintentional injuries, and cost-effectiveness - were not reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review provides evidence suggesting that a day care program with additional out-of-day care components such as community-based education, parent education, and playpens provided to parents likely reduces the drowning mortality risk in regions with a high burden of drowning compared to no intervention.\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 included evidence published up to August 18, 2020."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7626
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPatients admitted to intensive care and on mechanical ventilation, are administered sedative and analgesic drugs to improve both their comfort and interaction with the ventilator. Optimizing sedation practice may reduce mortality, improve patient comfort and reduce cost. Current practice is to use scales or scores to assess depth of sedation based on clinical criteria such as consciousness, understanding and response to commands. However these are perceived as subjective assessment tools. Bispectral index (BIS) monitors, which are based on the processing of electroencephalographic signals, may overcome the restraints of the sedation scales and provide a more reliable and consistent guidance for the titration of sedation depth.\nThe benefits of BIS monitoring of patients under general anaesthesia for surgical procedures have already been confirmed by another Cochrane review. By undertaking a well-conducted systematic review our aim was to find out if BIS monitoring improves outcomes in mechanically ventilated adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of BIS monitoring compared with clinical sedation assessment on ICU length of stay (LOS), duration of mechanical ventilation, any cause mortality, risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), risk of adverse events (e.g. self-extubation, unplanned disconnection of indwelling catheters), hospital LOS, amount of sedative agents used, cost, longer-term functional outcomes and quality of life as reported by authors for mechanically ventilated adults in the ICU.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ProQuest, OpenGrey and SciSearch up to May 2017 and checked references citation searching and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We searched trial registries, which included clinicaltrials.gov and controlled-trials.com.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials comparing BIS versus clinical assessment (CA) for the management of sedation in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. We undertook analysis using Revman 5.3 software.\nMain results\nWe identified 4245 possible studies from the initial search. Of those studies, four studies (256 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One more study is awaiting classification. Studies were, conducted in single-centre surgical and mixed medical-surgical ICUs. BIS monitor was used to assess the level of sedation in the intervention arm in all the studies. In the control arm, the sedation assessment tools for CA included the Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS), Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) or subjective CA utilizing traditional clinical signs (heart rate, blood pressure, conscious level and pupillary size). Only one study was classified as low risk of bias, the other three studies were classified as high risk.\nThere was no evidence of a difference in one study (N = 50) that measured ICU LOS (Median (Interquartile Range IQR) 8 (4 to 14) in the CA group; 12 (6 to 18) in the BIS group; low-quality evidence).There was little or no effect on the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.02 days (95% CI -0.13 to 0.09; 2 studies; N = 155; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence)). Adverse events were reported in one study (N = 105) and the effects on restlessness after suction, endotracheal tube resistance, pain tolerance during sedation or delirium after extubation were uncertain due to very low-quality evidence. Clinically relevant adverse events such as self-extubation were not reported in any study. Three studies reported the amount of sedative agents used. We could not measure combined difference in the amount of sedative agents used because of different sedation protocols and sedative agents used in the studies. GRADE quality of evidence was very low. No study reported other secondary outcomes of interest for the review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found insufficient evidence about the effects of BIS monitoring for sedation in critically ill mechanically ventilated adults on clinical outcomes or resource utilization. The findings are uncertain due to the low- and very low-quality evidence derived from a limited number of studies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusion\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The authors of this review conclude that we found insufficient evidence about the effects of BIS monitoring compared with CA of sedation in critically ill adults who were on a ventilator."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7627
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of a Cochrane Review last published in 2013. Long-term central venous catheters (CVCs), including tunnelled CVCs (TCVCs) and totally implanted devices or ports (TIDs), are increasingly used when treating people with cancer. Despite international guidelines on sterile insertion and appropriate CVC maintenance and use, infections remain a common complication. These infections are mainly caused by gram-positive bacteria. Antimicrobial prevention strategies aimed at these micro-organisms could potentially decrease the majority of CVC-related infections. The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of gram-positive infections in people with cancer who have long-term CVCs.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of administering antibiotics prior to the insertion of long-term CVCs or as a flush/lock solution, or both during long-term CVC access to prevent gram-positive CVC-related infections in adults and children receiving treatment for cancer.\nSearch methods\nThe search for this updated review was conducted on 19 November 2020. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid and Embase via Ovid. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal for additional articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared either the administration of prophylactic antibiotics prior to long-term CVC insertion versus no administration of antibiotics, or the use of an antibiotic versus a non-antibiotic flush/lock solution in long-term CVCs, in adults and children receiving treatment for cancer.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently selected studies, classified them and extracted data onto a predesigned data collection form. The outcomes of interest were gram-positive catheter-related infection events and total number of CVCs and CVC days. We pooled the data using a random-effects model for meta-analyses. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nFor this update, we identified 310 potentially relevant studies and screened them for eligibility. We included one additional RCT with 404 participants. The original review included 11 RCTs with a total of 840 people with cancer (adults and children). In total this review included 12 RCTs with 1244 participants.\nAntibiotics prior to insertion of the CVC\nSix trials compared the use of antibiotics (vancomycin, teicoplanin, ceftazidime or cefazolin) versus no antibiotics given before the insertion of a long-term CVC. One study did not observe any CVC-related infection events in either group was not included in the quantitative analysis as it was not possible to calculate a risk ratio. Administering an antibiotic prior to insertion of the CVC may not reduce gram-positive CVC-related infections (pooled risk ratio 0.67, confidence interval (CI) 95% 0.32 to 1.43; control versus intervention group risk 10.4% versus 7.3% of the participants; 5 studies, 648 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We sought adverse event data, but these were not described by the authors. The overall risk of bias was deemed low.\nAntibiotics as a flushing or locking solution\nSix trials compared a combined antibiotic (vancomycin, amikacin or taurolidine) and heparin solution with a heparin-only solution for flushing or locking the long-term CVC after use. One study did not observe any CVC-related sepsis events (CRS) and was not included in this study in the quantitative analysis as it was not possible to calculate a risk ratio. Flushing and locking long-term CVCs with a combined antibiotic and heparin solution likely reduced the risk of gram-positive CVC-related infections compared to a heparin-only solution (pooled rate ratio 0.47, CI 95% 0.26 to 0.85; control versus intervention group rate ratio 0.66 versus 0.27 per 1000 CVC-days; 5 studies, 443 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial reported a higher incidence of occlusions and participants in one trial reported an unpleasant taste after flushing associated with a combined antibiotic and heparin solution. The overall risk of bias was deemed low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSince the last version of this review, we included one additional study. There was no observed benefit of administering antibiotics before the insertion of long-term CVCs to prevent gram-positive CVC-related infections. Flushing or locking long-term CVCs with an antibiotic solution likely reduces gram-positive CVC-related infections experienced in people at risk of neutropenia through chemotherapy or disease. However, a limitation of this review is heterogeneity between the studies for both outcomes. Insufficient data were available to evaluate if the conclusions apply equally for different CVC types and for adults versus children. It must be noted that the use of an antibiotic flush/lock solution may increase microbial antibiotic resistance, therefore it should be reserved for high-risk people or if the baseline CVC-related infection rates are high. Further research is needed to identify high-risk groups most likely to benefit from these antibiotic flush/lock solutions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the main findings?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched databases to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs - clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups). We identified 12 relevant studies, which included a total of 1244 adults and children with cancer.\nWe included six studies (756 people) that compared giving antibiotics before the insertion of the CVC against not giving antibiotics. We found that giving an antibiotic before CVC insertion did not prevent infections. The studies authors' did not describe side-effects.\nWe included six studies (488 people) that compared an antibiotic solution with a heparin-only solution to flush/lock a CVC. We found that an antibiotic lock/flush solution reduced the number of CVC-related infections. People in one study reported an unpleasant taste after flushing, and one study found there were fewer CVC obstructions (e.g. a clot) in people who received the combined antibiotic and anticoagulant solution."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7628
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSurgical removal of the tonsils, with or without adenoidectomy (adeno-/tonsillectomy), is a common ENT operation, but the indications for surgery are controversial. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 3, 1999 and previously updated in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of tonsillectomy (with and without adenoidectomy) in children and adults with chronic/recurrent acute tonsillitis in reducing the number and severity of episodes of tonsillitis or sore throat.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 30 June 2014.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing tonsillectomy (with or without adenoidectomy) with non-surgical treatment in adults and children with chronic/recurrent acute tonsillitis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nThis review includes seven trials with low to moderate risk of bias: five undertaken in children (987 participants) and two in adults (156 participants). An eighth trial in adults (40 participants) was at high risk of bias and did not provide any data for analysis. Good information about the effectiveness of adeno-/tonsillectomy is only available for the first year following surgery in children and for a shorter period (five to six months) in adults.\nWe combined data from five trials in children; these trials included children who were 'severely affected' (based on the specific 'Paradise' criteria) and less severely affected. Children who had an adeno-/tonsillectomy had an average of three episodes of sore throats (of any severity) in the first postoperative year, compared to 3.6 episodes in the control group; a difference of 0.6 episodes (95% confidence interval (CI) -1 to -0.1; moderate quality evidence). One of the three episodes in the surgical group was the 'predictable' one that occurred in the immediate postoperative period.\nWhen we analysed only episodes of moderate/severe sore throat, children who had been more severely affected and had adeno-/tonsillectomy had on average 1.1 episodes of sore throat in the first postoperative year, compared with 1.2 episodes in the control group (low quality evidence). This is not a significant difference but one episode in the surgical group was that occurring immediately after surgery.\nLess severely affected children had more episodes of moderate/severe sore throat after surgery (1.2 episodes) than in the control group (0.4 episodes: difference 0.8, 95% CI 0.7 to 0.9), but again one episode was the predictable postoperative episode (moderate quality evidence).\nData on the number of sore throat days is only available for moderately affected children and is consistent with the data on episodes. In the first year after surgery children undergoing surgery had an average of 18 days of sore throat (of which some - between five and seven on average - will be in the immediate postoperative period), compared with 23 days in the control group (difference 5.1 days, 95% CI 2.2 to 8.1; moderate quality evidence).\nWhen we pooled the data from two studies in adults (156 participants), there were 3.6 fewer episodes (95% CI 7.9 fewer to 0.70 more; low quality evidence) in the group receiving surgery within six months post-surgery. However, statistical heterogeneity was significant. The pooled mean difference for number of days with sore throat in a follow-up period of about six months was 10.6 days fewer in favour of the group receiving surgery (95% CI 5.8 fewer to 15.8 fewer; low quality evidence). However, there was also significant statistical heterogeneity in this analysis and the number of days with postoperative pain (which appeared to be on average 13 to 17 days in the two trials) was not included. Given the short duration of follow-up and the differences between studies, we considered the evidence for adults to be of low quality.\nTwo studies in children reported that there was \"no statistically significant difference\" in quality of life outcomes, but the data could not be pooled. One study reported no difference in analgesics consumption. We found no evidence for prescription of antibiotics.\nLimited data are available from the included studies to quantify the important risks of primary and secondary haemorrhage.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAdeno-/tonsillectomy leads to a reduction in the number of episodes of sore throat and days with sore throat in children in the first year after surgery compared to (initial) non-surgical treatment. Children who were more severely affected were more likely to benefit as they had a small reduction in moderate/severe sore throat episodes. The size of the effect is very modest, but there may be a benefit to knowing the precise timing of one episode of pain lasting several days - it occurs immediately after surgery as a direct consequence of the procedure. It is clear that some children get better without any surgery, and that whilst removing the tonsils will always prevent 'tonsillitis', the impact of the procedure on 'sore throats' due to pharyngitis is much less predictable.\nInsufficient information is available on the effectiveness of adeno-/tonsillectomy versus non-surgical treatment in adults to draw a firm conclusion.\nThe impact of surgery, as demonstrated in the included studies, is modest. Many participants in the non-surgical group improve spontaneously (although some people randomised to this group do in fact undergo surgery). The potential 'benefit' of surgery must be weighed against the risks of the procedure as adeno-/tonsillectomy is associated with a small but significant degree of morbidity in the form of primary and secondary haemorrhage and, even with good analgesia, is particularly uncomfortable for adults.\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": "Surgical removal of the tonsils is a commonly performed operation in patients with chronic or recurrent infections of the tonsils (tonsillitis) or the other tissues at the back of the throat (pharyngitis). Sometimes, the adenoid tissues are also removed during the surgery. However, opinions vary greatly about whether or not the benefits of these operations outweigh the risks."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7629
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and IOC.\nObjectives\nTo determine and compare the accuracy of ERCP and IOC for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov to September 2012. To identify additional studies, we searched the references of included studies and systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for ERCP or IOC. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct, or symptom-free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones; with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion independently.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently collected data from each study. We used the bivariate model to summarise the sensitivity and specificity of the tests.\nMain results\nWe identified five studies including 318 participants (180 participants with and 138 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and five studies including 654 participants (125 participants with and 529 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of IOC. Most studies included people with symptoms (participants with jaundice or pancreatitis) suspected of having common bile duct stones based on blood tests, ultrasound, or both, prior to the performance of ERCP or IOC. Most studies included participants who had not previously undergone removal of the gallbladder (cholecystectomy). None of the included studies was of high methodological quality as evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool (quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies). The sensitivities of ERCP ranged between 0.67 and 0.94 and the specificities ranged between 0.92 and 1.00. For ERCP, the summary sensitivity was 0.83 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.90) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00). The sensitivities of IOC ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.96 and 1.00. For IOC, the summary sensitivity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00). For ERCP, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35 estimated from the included studies (i.e., 35% of people suspected of having common bile duct stones were confirmed to have gallstones by the reference standard), the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) and negative test results was 0.09 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.14). For IOC, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35, the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.98 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.00) and negative test results was 0.01 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.10). There was weak evidence of a difference in sensitivity (P value = 0.05) with IOC showing higher sensitivity than ERCP. There was no evidence of a difference in specificity (P value = 0.7) with both tests having similar specificity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough the sensitivity of IOC appeared to be better than that of ERCP, this finding may be unreliable because none of the studies compared both tests in the same study populations and most of the studies were methodologically flawed. It appears that both tests were fairly accurate in guiding further invasive treatment as most people diagnosed with common bile duct stones by these tests had common bile duct stones. Some people may have common bile duct stones in spite of having a negative ERCP or IOC result. Such people may have to be re-tested if the clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones is very high because of their symptoms or persistently abnormal liver function tests. However, the results should be interpreted with caution given the limited quantity and quality of the evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The liver has various functions. Production of bile is one of these functions. The common bile duct (CBD) is the tube through which bile flows from the gallbladder (where bile is temporarily stored) into the small bowel. Stones in the CBD (CBD stones) can obstruct the flow of bile from the liver into the small bowel. Usually such stones are formed in the gallbladder and migrate into the CBD. Obstruction of the flow of bile can lead to jaundice (yellowish discolouration of skin and white of the eyes, and dark urine), infection of the bile duct (cholangitis), and inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis), which can be life threatening. Various diagnostic tests can be performed to diagnose CBD stones. Depending upon the availability of resources, these stones are removed endoscopically (a tube inserted into the stomach and upper part of small bowel through mouth; usually the case), or may be removed as part of the laparoscopic operation (key hole surgery) or open operation performed to remove the gallbladder (cholecystectomy; it is important to remove the gallbladder since the stones continue to form in the gallbladder and can cause recurrent health problems). If the stones are removed endoscopically, presence of stones is confirmed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (injection of dye into the CBD using an endoscope) before endoscopic removal of CBD stones. Alternatively, intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) (injection of dye into the biliary tree during an operation to remove the CBD stones, usually combined with an operation to remove gallstones) can be performed to detect CBD stones prior to operative removal of the stones. We performed a thorough search for studies that reported the accuracy of ERCP or IOC for the diagnosis of CBD stones. The evidence is current to September 2012."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7630
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nApproximately 30% of adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery suffer from preoperative anaemia. Preoperative anaemia is a risk factor for mortality and adverse outcomes in different surgical specialties and is frequently the reason for blood transfusion. The most common causes are renal, chronic diseases, and iron deficiency. International guidelines recommend that the cause of anaemia guide preoperative anaemia treatment. Recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) with iron supplementation has frequently been used to increase preoperative haemoglobin concentrations in patients in order to avoid the need for perioperative allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy of preoperative rHuEPO therapy (subcutaneous or parenteral) with iron (enteral or parenteral) in reducing the need for allogeneic RBC transfusions in preoperatively anaemic adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid Embase, ISI Web of Science: SCI-EXPANDED and CPCI-S, and clinical trial registries WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 29 August 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared preoperative rHuEPO + iron therapy to control treatment (placebo, no treatment, or standard of care with or without iron) for preoperatively anaemic adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery.\nWe used the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of anaemia: haemoglobin concentration (g/dL) less than 13 g/dL for males, and 12 g/dL for non-pregnant females (decision of inclusion based on mean haemoglobin concentration). We defined two subgroups of rHuEPO dosage: 'low' for 150 to 300 international units (IU)/kg body weight, and 'high' for 500 to 600 IU/kg body weight.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors collected data from the included studies. Our primary outcome was the need for RBC transfusion (no autologous transfusion, fresh frozen plasma or platelets), measured in transfused participants during surgery (intraoperative) and up to five days after surgery. Secondary outcomes of interest were: haemoglobin concentration (directly before surgery), number of RBC units (where one unit contains 250 to 450 mL) transfused per participant (intraoperative and up to five days after surgery), mortality (within 30 days after surgery), length of hospital stay, and adverse events (e.g. renal dysfunction, thromboembolism, hypertension, allergic reaction, headache, fever, constipation).\nMain results\nMost of the included trials were in orthopaedic, gastrointestinal, and gynaecological surgery and included participants with mild and moderate preoperative anaemia (haemoglobin from 10 to 12 g/dL). The duration of preoperative rHuEPO treatment varied across the trials, ranging from once a week to daily or a 5-to-10-day period, and in one trial preoperative rHuEPO was given on the morning of surgery and for five days postoperatively.\nWe included 12 trials (participants = 1880) in the quantitative analysis of the need for RBC transfusion following preoperative treatment with rHuEPO + iron to correct preoperative anaemia in non-cardiac surgery; two studies were multiarmed trials with two different dose regimens.\nPreoperative rHuEPO + iron given to anaemic adults reduced the need RBC transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 0.80; participants = 1880; studies = 12; I2 = 84%; moderate-quality evidence due to inconsistency). This analysis suggests that on average, the combined administration of rHuEPO + iron will mean 231 fewer individuals will need transfusion for every 1000 individuals compared to the control group.\nPreoperative high-dose rHuEPO + iron given to anaemic adults increased the haemoglobin concentration (mean difference (MD) 1.87 g/dL, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.49; participants = 852; studies = 3; I2 = 89%; low-quality evidence due to inconsistency and risk of bias) but not low-dose rHuEPO + iron (MD 0.11 g/dL, 95% CI −0.46 to 0.69; participants = 334; studies = 4; I2 = 69%; low-quality evidence due to inconsistency and risk of bias).\nThere was probably little or no difference in the number of RBC units when rHuEPO + iron was given preoperatively (MD −0.09, 95% CI −0.23 to 0.05; participants = 1420; studies = 6; I2 = 2%; moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision).\nThere was probably little or no difference in the risk of mortality within 30 days of surgery (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.63; participants = 230; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision) or of adverse events including local rash, fever, constipation, or transient hypertension (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.28; participants = 1722; studies = 10; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision).\nThe administration of rHuEPO + iron before non-cardiac surgery did not clearly reduce the length of hospital stay of preoperative anaemic adults (MD −1.07, 95% CI −4.12 to 1.98; participants = 293; studies = 3; I2 = 87%; low-quality evidence due to inconsistency and imprecision).\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-quality evidence suggests that preoperative rHuEPO + iron therapy for anaemic adults prior to non-cardiac surgery reduces the need for RBC transfusion and, when given at higher doses, increases the haemoglobin concentration preoperatively. The administration of rHuEPO + iron treatment did not decrease the mean number of units of RBC transfused per patient.\nThere were no important differences in the risk of adverse events or mortality within 30 days, nor in length of hospital stay. Further, well-designed, adequately powered RCTs are required to estimate the impact of this combined treatment more precisely.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The quality of the evidence was moderate for the outcome need for RBC transfusion, due to some inconsistency between eligible trials; low for haemoglobin concentration before surgery due to inconsistency between eligible trials and risk of bias; moderate for the amount of RBC units transfused, due to differences in how studies measured the number of units; low for length of hospital stay due to inconsistency in findings and imprecision of the studies; and moderate for mortality and adverse events and death, as only a small number of events were reported."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7631
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnkylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic, inflammatory rheumatic disease. Physiotherapy is considered an important part of the overall management of AS.\nObjectives\nTo summarise the available scientific evidence on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions in the management of AS.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and PEDro up to January 2007 for all relevant publications, without any language restrictions. We checked the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted the authors of included articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised studies with AS patients and where at least one of the comparison groups received physiotherapy. The main outcomes of interest were pain, stiffness, spinal mobility, physical function and patient global assessment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trial quality. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information.\nMain results\nEleven trials with a total of 763 participants were included in this updated review. \nFour trials compared individualised home exercise programs or a supervised exercise program with no intervention and reported low quality evidence for effects in spinal mobility (Relative percentage differences (RPDs) from 5-50%) and physical function (four points on a 33-point scale). \nThree trials compared supervised group physiotherapy with an individualised home-exercise program and reported moderate quality evidence for small differences in spinal mobility (RPDs 7.5-18%) and patient global assessment (1.46 cm) in favour of supervised group exercises. \nIn one study, a three-week inpatient spa-exercise therapy followed by 37 weeks of weekly outpatient group physiotherapy (without spa) was compared with weekly outpatient group physiotherapy alone; there was moderate quality evidence for effects in pain (18%), physical function (24%) and patient global assessment (27%) in favour of the combined spa-exercise therapy. One study compared daily outpatient balneotherapy and an exercise program with only exercise program, and another study compared balneotherapy with fresh water therapy. None of these studies showed significant between-group differences. One study compared an experimental exercise program with a conventional program; statistically significant change scores were reported on nearly all spinal mobility measures and physical function in favour of the experimental program.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe results of this review suggest that an individual home-based or supervised exercise program is better than no intervention; that supervised group physiotherapy is better than home exercises; and that combined inpatient spa-exercise therapy followed by group physiotherapy is better than group physiotherapy alone.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How well does physical therapy work for treating ankylosing spondylitis and how safe is it?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "To answer this question, scientists working with the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group found and analyzed 11 studies testing over 700 people who had ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Studies compared people who did exercises at home, went to group exercise programs, went to spa or balneotherapy, performed different exercise programs or had no therapy at all. These studies provide the best evidence we have today."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7632
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001 and then updated in 2009. Vascular risk factors including high cholesterol levels increase the risk of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease and of vascular dementia. Some observational studies have suggested an association between statin use and lowered incidence of dementia.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of statins for the prevention of dementia in people at risk of dementia due to their age and to determine whether the efficacy and safety of statins for this purpose depends on cholesterol level, apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype or cognitive level.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS (the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) Portal on 11 November 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials in which statins were administered for at least 12 months to people at risk of dementia.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included two trials with 26,340 participants aged 40 to 82 years of whom 11,610 were aged 70 or older. All participants had a history of, or risk factors for, vascular disease. The studies used different statins (simvastatin and pravastatin). Mean follow-up was 3.2 years in one study and five years in one study. The risk of bias was low. Only one study reported on the incidence of dementia (20,536 participants, 31 cases in each group; odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.65, moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to imprecision). Both studies assessed cognitive function, but at different times using different scales, so we judged the results unsuitable for a meta-analysis. There were no differences between statin and placebo groups on five different cognitive tests (high quality evidence). Rates of treatment discontinuation due to non-fatal adverse events were less than 5% in both studies and there was no difference between statin and placebo groups in the risk of withdrawal due to adverse events (26,340 participants, 2 studies, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is good evidence that statins given in late life to people at risk of vascular disease do not prevent cognitive decline or dementia. Biologically, it seems feasible that statins could prevent dementia due to their role in cholesterol reduction and initial evidence from observational studies was very promising. However, indication bias may have been a factor in these studies and the evidence from subsequent RCTs has been negative. There were limitations in the included studies involving the cognitive assessments used and the inclusion of participants at moderate to high vascular risk only.\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 two suitable randomised trials for inclusion in this review with 26,340 participants; neither showed any reduction in occurrence of Alzheimer's disease or dementia in people treated with statins compared to people given placebo. Side effects were low in both statin and placebo groups with no difference between groups in the risk of dropping out of the trial due to side effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7633
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSkeletal muscle spasticity is a major physical complication resulting from traumatic brain injury (TBI), which can lead to muscle contracture, joint stiffness, reduced range of movement, broken skin and pain. Treatments for spasticity include a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, often used in combination. Management of spasticity following TBI varies from other clinical populations because of the added complexity of behavioural and cognitive issues associated with TBI.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity in people with TBI.\nSearch methods\nIn June 2017, we searched key databases including the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and others, in addition to clinical trials registries and the reference lists of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over RCTs evaluating any intervention for the management of spasticity in TBI. Only studies where at least 50% of participants had a TBI (or for whom separate data for participants with TBI were available) were included. The primary outcomes were spasticity and adverse effects. Secondary outcome measures were classified according to the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health including body functions (sensory, pain, neuromusculoskeletal and movement-related functions) and activities and participation (general tasks and demands; mobility; self-care; domestic life; major life areas; community, social and civic life).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Data were synthesised narratively; meta-analysis was precluded due to the paucity and heterogeneity of data.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies in this review which involved 134 participants with TBI. Only five studies reported between-group differences, yielding outcome data for 105 participants with TBI. These five studies assessed the effects of a range of pharmacological (baclofen, botulinum toxin A) and non-pharmacological (casting, physiotherapy, splints, tilt table standing and electrical stimulation) interventions, often in combination. The studies which tested the effect of baclofen and tizanidine did not report their results adequately. Where outcome data were available, spasticity and adverse events were reported, in addition to some secondary outcome measures.\nOf the five studies with results, three were funded by governments, charities or health services and two were funded by a pharmaceutical or medical technology company. The four studies without useable results were funded by pharmaceutical or medical technology companies.\nIt was difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of these interventions due to poor reporting, small study size and the fact that participants with TBI were usually only a proportion of the overall total. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to the paucity of data and heterogeneity of interventions and comparator groups. Some studies concluded that the intervention they tested had beneficial effects on spasticity, and others found no difference between certain treatments. The most common adverse event was minor skin damage in people who received casting. We believe it would be misleading to provide any further description of study results given the quality of the evidence was very low for all outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe very low quality and limited amount of evidence about the management of spasticity in people with TBI means that we are uncertain about the effectiveness or harms of these interventions. Well-designed and adequately powered studies using functional outcome measures to test the interventions used in clinical practice are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The quality of this evidence was very low; we only had five studies with results and none of the studies were large or comparable with one another. We also had concerns about how they were conducted or analysed. Because of this, we cannot draw any firm conclusions about the benefits and harms of different treatments for spasticity in people with TBI."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7634
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIndividuals with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee can be treated with a knee brace or a foot/ankle orthosis. The main purpose of these aids is to reduce pain, improve physical function and, possibly, slow disease progression. This is the second update of the original review published in Issue 1, 2005, and first updated in 2007.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of braces and foot/ankle orthoses in the treatment of patients with OA of the knee.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE (current contents, HealthSTAR) up to March 2014. We screened reference lists of identified trials and clinical trial registers for ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and controlled clinical trials investigating all types of braces and foot/ankle orthoses for OA of the knee compared with an active control or no treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias using the 'Risk of bias' tool of The Cochrane Collaboration. We analysed the quality of the results by performing an overall grading of evidence by outcome using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. As a result of heterogeneity of studies, pooling of outcome data was possible for only three insole studies.\nMain results\nWe included 13 studies (n = 1356): four studies in the first version, three studies in the first update and six additional studies (n = 529 participants) in the second update. We included studies that reported results when study participants with early to severe knee OA (Kellgren & Lawrence grade I-IV) were treated with a knee brace (valgus knee brace, neutral brace or neoprene sleeve) or an orthosis (laterally or medially wedged insole, neutral insole, variable or constant stiffness shoe) or were given no treatment. The main comparisons included (1) brace versus no treatment; (2) foot/ankle orthosis versus no treatment or other treatment; and (3) brace versus foot/ankle orthosis. Seven studies had low risk, two studies had high risk and four studies had unclear risk of selection bias. Five studies had low risk, three studies had high risk and five studies had unclear risk of detection bias. Ten studies had high risk and three studies had low risk of performance bias. Nine studies had low risk and four studies had high risk of reporting bias.\nFour studies compared brace versus no treatment, but only one provided useful data for meta-analysis at 12-month follow-up. One study (n = 117, low-quality evidence) showed lack of evidence of an effect on visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores (absolute percent change 0%, mean difference (MD) 0.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.84 to 0.84), function scores (absolute percent change 1%, MD 1.0, 95% CI -2.98 to 4.98) and health-related quality of life scores (absolute percent change 4%, MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.04) after 12 months. Many participants stopped their initial treatment because of lack of effect (24 of 60 participants in the brace group and 14 of 57 participants in the no treatment group; absolute percent change 15%, risk ratio (RR) 1.63, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.82). The other studies reported some improvement in pain, function and health-related quality of life (P value ≤ 0.001). Stiffness and treatment failure (need for surgery) were not reported in the included studies.\nFor the comparison of laterally wedged insole versus no insole, one study (n = 40, low-quality evidence) showed a lower VAS pain score in the laterally wedged insole group (absolute percent change 16%, MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.31 to -0.89) after nine months. Function, stiffness, health-related quality of life, treatment failure and adverse events were not reported in the included study.\nFor the comparison of laterally wedged versus neutral insole after pooling of three studies (n = 358, moderate-quality evidence), little evidence was found of an effect on numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores (absolute percent change 1.0%, MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.65), Western Ontario-McMaster Osteoarthritis Scale (WOMAC) stiffness scores (absolute percent change 0.1%, MD 0.07, 95% CI -4.96 to 5.1) and WOMAC function scores (absolute percent change 0.9%, MD 0.94, 95% CI - 2.98 to 4.87) after 12 months. Evidence of an effect on health-related quality of life scores (absolute percent change 1.0%, MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.03) was lacking in one study (n = 179, moderate-quality evidence). Treatment failure and adverse events were not studied for this comparison in the included studies.\nData for the comparison of laterally wedged insole versus valgus knee brace could not be pooled. After six months' follow-up, no statistically significant difference was noted in VAS pain scores (absolute percent change -2.0%, MD -0.2, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.75) and WOMAC function scores (absolute percent change 0.1%, MD 0.1, 95% CI -7.26 to 0.75) in one study (n = 91, low-quality evidence); however both groups showed improvement. Stiffness, health-related quality of life, treatment failure and adverse events were not reported in the included studies for this comparison.\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence was inconclusive for the benefits of bracing for pain, stiffness, function and quality of life in the treatment of patients with medial compartment knee OA. On the basis of one laterally wedged insole versus no treatment study, we conclude that evidence of an effect on pain in patients with varus knee OA is lacking. Moderate-quality evidence shows lack of an effect on improvement in pain, stiffness and function between patients treated with a laterally wedged insole and those treated with a neutral insole. Low-quality evidence shows lack of an effect on improvement in pain, stiffness and function between patients treated with a valgus knee brace and those treated with a laterally wedged insole. The optimal choice for an orthosis remains unclear, and long-term implications are lacking.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Research question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This summary of a Cochrane review presents what we know from research about the effects of braces and foot/ankle orthoses in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. We searched for evidence up to March 2014. We found 13 studies (n = 1356) and included in this update six additional studies (n = 529 participants)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7635
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPatellofemoral pain syndrome, now generally referred to as patellofemoral pain (PFP), is one of the most common orthopaedic disorders, characterised by pain in the anterior or retropatellar knee region. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been proposed generally as a complementary treatment, associated with other interventions such as exercise, or as a single treatment to increase muscle force, reduce knee pain, and improve function.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects (benefits and harms) of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for people with patellofemoral pain.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, AMED, LILACS, trial registers, conference abstracts, and reference lists. We carried out the search in May 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled clinical trials that evaluated the use of NMES for people with PFP.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed the process of study selection, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment in duplicate. The primary outcomes were knee pain, knee function, and adverse events. The timing of outcome measurements was up to three months (short term), three to 12 months (medium term), and 12 months and above from trial entry (long term). We calculated risk ratios for dichotomous data and mean differences or standardised mean differences for continuous data. Where appropriate, we pooled data using the fixed-effect model.\nMain results\nWe included eight randomised clinical trials, reporting results for 345 participants with PFP. The mean ages of trial populations ranged from 25 to 43 years, and the majority (53% to 100%) of participants were female. There was a wide duration of symptoms, with the minimum duration of symptoms for trial inclusion ranging from one to six months. In addition to the study inclusion criteria, studies varied widely in the characteristics of the NMES and its application, and associated co-interventions. We assessed all trials as at high risk of bias in at least one domain, particularly blinding and incomplete outcome data. The results of a laboratory-based trial reporting knee pain immediately after a single 15-minute session of NMES are not reported here as these are of questionable clinical relevance. The seven remaining trials provided evidence for three comparisons. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE, for all primary outcomes for all comparisons as very low, thus we are very unsure of the findings.\nFour studies compared NMES plus exercise versus exercise alone. Patellar taping was applied as well as exercise to all participants of one study, and patellar taping and ice were also applied in another study. Each trial tested a different multiple-session NMES programme. Pooled data from three studies (118 participants) provided very low-quality evidence that NMES is associated with reduced pain at the end of treatment (ranging from 3 to 12 weeks): mean difference -1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.23 to -1.02; visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10; higher scores = worse pain. However, this result may not be clinically relevant since the minimal clinically important difference for VAS during activities (1.5 to 2.0, out of 10 points) lies within the 95% CI. We found very low-quality evidence from pooled data from two trials of little effect of NMES on knee function, as measured by two knee function rating systems. We found inconclusive and very low-quality evidence from one trial (29 participants) of little effect of NMES on pain and function at one-year follow-up. None of the four trials reported on adverse effects of treatment.\nOne study (94 participants) compared NMES, applied four hours per day on a daily basis for four weeks, with two types of exercises (isometric and isokinetic). The study did not report on knee pain or adverse events. The study provided very low-quality evidence of no important difference between the two groups in knee function at the end of the four-week treatment. Of note is the potentially onerous NMES schedule in this study, which does not correspond to that typically used in clinical practice.\nTwo studies compared different types of NMES. Simultaneously delivered high-low frequencies NMES was compared with sequentially delivered high-low frequencies NMES in one trial (14 participants) and with fixed frequency NMES in the second trial (64 participants). The studies provided very low-quality evidence of no important differences at the end of the six-week treatment programme between the simultaneous frequencies NMES and the two other NMES programmes in overall knee pain, knee function, or in quadriceps fatigue (an adverse event).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review found insufficient and inconclusive evidence from randomised controlled trials to inform on the role of NMES for treating people with PFP in current clinical practice. The very low-quality evidence available means that we are uncertain whether or not a multiple-session programme of NMES combined with exercise over several weeks versus exercise alone results in clinically important differences in knee pain and function at the end of the treatment period or at one year. There were no data on adverse effects such as muscle fatigue and discomfort. High-quality randomised clinical trials are needed to inform on the use of NMES for people with PFP. However, professional and stakeholder consensus is required on prioritisation of the research questions for interventions for treating people with PFP, including on the NMES treatment protocol for trials testing NMES.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found insufficient evidence to inform on the role of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for treating people with anterior knee pain. Further research is needed."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7636
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic deep venous insufficiency is caused by incompetent vein valves, blockage of large-calibre leg veins, or both; and causes a range of symptoms including recurrent ulcers, pain and swelling. Most surgeons accept that well-fitted graduated compression stockings (GCS) and local care of wounds serve as adequate treatment for most people, but sometimes symptoms are not controlled and ulcers recur frequently, or they do not heal despite compliance with conservative measures. In these situations, in the presence of severe venous dysfunction, surgery has been advocated by some vascular surgeons. This is an update of the review first published in 2000.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of surgical management of deep venous insufficiency on ulcer healing and recurrence, complications of surgery, clinical outcomes, quality of life (QoL) and pain.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases, and the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries to 23 June 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical treatment versus another surgical procedure, usual care or no treatment, for people with deep venous insufficiency.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We were unable to pool data due to differences in outcomes reported and how these were measured. Outcomes of interest were ulcer healing and recurrence, complications of surgery, clinical changes, QoL and pain.\nMain results\nWe included four RCTs (273 participants) comparing valvuloplasty plus surgery of the superficial venous system with surgery of the superficial venous system for primary valvular incompetence. Follow-up was two to 10 years. All included studies investigated primary valve incompetence. No studies investigated other surgical procedures for the treatment of people with deep venous insufficiency or surgery for secondary valvular incompetence or venous obstruction. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded for risk of bias concerns and imprecision due to small numbers of included trials, participants and events.\nNone of the studies reported ulcer healing or ulcer recurrence. One study included 27 participants with active venous ulceration at the time of surgery; the other three studies did not include people with ulcers.\nThere were no major complications of surgery, no incidence of deep vein thrombosis and no deaths reported (very low-certainty evidence).\nAll four studies reported clinical changes but the data could not be pooled due to different outcome measures and reporting of the data. Two studies assessed clinical changes using subjective and objective measurements, as specified in the clinical, aetiological, anatomical and pathophysiological (CEAP) classification score (low-certainty evidence). One study reported mean CEAP severity scores and one study reported change in clinical class using CEAP. At baseline, the mean CEAP severity score was 18.1 (standard deviation (SD) 4.4) for limbs undergoing external valvuloplasty with surgery to the superficial venous system and 17.8 (SD 3.4) for limbs undergoing surgery to the superficial venous system only. At three years post-surgery, the mean CEAP severity score was 5.2 (SD 1.6) for limbs that had undergone external valvuloplasty with surgery to the superficial venous system and 9.2 (SD 2.6) for limbs that had undergone surgery to the superficial venous system only (low-certainty evidence).\nIn another study, participants with progressive clinical dynamics over the five years preceding surgery had higher rates of improvement in clinical condition in the treatment group (valvuloplasty plus ligation) compared with the control group (ligation only) (80% versus 51%) after seven years of follow-up. Participants with stable preoperative clinical dynamics demonstrated similar rates of improvement in both groups (95% with valvuloplasty plus ligation versus 90% with ligation only) (low-certainty evidence).\nOne study reported disease-specific QoL using cumulative scores from a 10-item visual analogue scale (VAS) and reported that in the limited anterior plication (LAP) plus superficial venous surgery group the score decreased from 49 to 11 at 10 years, compared to a decrease from 48 to 36 in participants treated with superficial venous surgery only (very low-certainty evidence).\nTwo studies reported pain. Within the QoL VAS scale, one item was 'pain/discomfort' and scores decreased from 4 to 1 at 10 years for participants in the LAP plus superficial venous surgery group and increased from 2 to 3 at 10 years in participants treated with superficial venous surgery only. A second study reported that 'leg heaviness and pain' was resolved completely in 36/40 limbs treated with femoral vein external valvuloplasty plus high ligation and stripping of the great saphenous vein (GSV) and percutaneous continuous circumsuture and 22/40 limbs treated with high ligation and stripping of GSV and percutaneous continuous circumsuture alone, at three years' follow-up (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe only identified evidence from four RCTs for valvuloplasty plus surgery of the superficial venous system for primary valvular incompetence. We found no studies investigating other surgical procedures for the treatment of people with deep venous insufficiency, or that included participants with secondary valvular incompetence or venous obstruction. None of the studies reported ulcer healing or recurrence, and few studies reported complications of surgery, clinical outcomes, QoL and pain (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Conclusions on the effectiveness of valvuloplasty for deep venous insufficiency cannot be made.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusion\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There is not enough evidence to determine the effectiveness of surgery on the treatment of people with deep venous insufficiency. The included studies did not include people with severe deep venous insufficiency (venous obstruction). Trials investigating the effects of other surgical procedures on the deep veins are needed."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7637
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nObservational studies of increasingly better quality and in different settings suggest that planned hospital birth in many places does not reduce mortality and morbidity but increases the frequency of interventions and complications. Euro-Peristat (part of the European Union's Health Monitoring Programme) has raised concerns about iatrogenic effects of obstetric interventions, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has raised concern that the increasing medicalisation of childbirth tends to undermine women’s own capability to give birth and negatively impacts their childbirth experience. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1998, and previously updated in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of planned hospital birth with planned home birth attended by a midwife or others with midwifery skills and backed up by a modern hospital system in case a transfer to hospital should turn out to be necessary. The primary focus is on women with an uncomplicated pregnancy and low risk of medical intervention during birth.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP, and conference proceedings), ClinicalTrials.gov (16 July 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing planned hospital birth with planned home birth in low-risk women as described in the objectives. Cluster-randomised trials, quasi-randomised trials, and trials published only as an abstract were also eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked the data for accuracy. We contacted study authors for additional information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included one trial involving 11 participants. This was a small feasibility study to show that well-informed women - contrary to common beliefs - were prepared to be randomised. This update did not identify any additional studies for inclusion, but excluded one study that had been awaiting assessment. The included study was at high risk of bias for three out of seven risk of bias domains. The trial did not report on five of the seven primary outcomes, and reported zero events for one primary outcome (caesarean section), and non-zero events for the remaining primary outcome (baby not breastfed). Maternal mortality, perinatal mortality (non-malformed), Apgar < 7 at 5 minutes, transfer to neonatal intensive care unit, and maternal satisfaction were not reported. The overall certainty of the evidence for the two reported primary outcomes was very low according to our GRADE assessment (downgraded two levels for high overall risk of bias (due to high risk of bias arising from lack of blinding, high risk of selective reporting and lack of ability to check for publication bias) and two levels for very serious imprecision (single study with few events)).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review shows that for selected, low-risk pregnant women, the evidence from randomised trials to support that planned hospital birth reduces maternal or perinatal mortality, morbidity, or any other critical outcome is uncertain. As the quality of evidence in favour of home birth from observational studies seems to be steadily increasing, it might be just as important to prepare a regularly updated systematic review including observational studies as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions as to attempt to set up new RCTs. As women and healthcare practitioners may be aware of evidence from observational studies, and as the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the International Confederation of Midwives collaboratively conclude that there is strong evidence that out-of-hospital birth supported by a registered midwife is safe, equipoise may no longer exist, and randomised trials may now thus be considered unethical or hardly feasible.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What evidence did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (studies where participants are randomly assigned to one of two or more treatment groups) in July 2021. No new RCTs were identified in addition to the two previously identified very small RCTs. Only one RCT (involving 11 women and their babies) contributed data to the review, so it is not possible to draw any conclusions from such a small number of women and babies. To the extent that the study reported data, the certainty of the evidence was very low. We found no strong evidence from RCTs to favour either planned hospital birth or planned home birth for pregnant women at low risk of complications. Several things have been added to the review in this update. Most importantly, the evidence has been placed in the context of today. As advised in the updated version of the Cochrane Handbook, we have also a) added a conceptual framework to illustrate the proposed mechanism of action of the complex intervention ‘planned hospital birth’, and b) reassessed the evidence using a whole range of new tools, methodologies, and terminology. These exercises did not lead to a substantially different interpretation of the available evidence, but the implications have changed."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7638
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOsteoporosis is a disorder of bone mineralisation occurring in about one third of adults with cystic fibrosis. Bisphosphonates can increase bone mineral density and decrease the risk of new fractures in post-menopausal women and people receiving long-term oral corticosteroids. This is an updated version of a previous review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of bisphosphonates on the frequency of fractures, bone mineral density, quality of life, adverse events, trial withdrawals, and survival in people with cystic fibrosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register of references (identified from electronic database searches and hand searches of journals and abstract books) on 5 May 2022.\nWe performed additional searches of PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) on 5 May 2022.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of at least six months duration studying bisphosphonates in people with cystic fibrosis.\nData collection and analysis\nAuthors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. Trial investigators were contacted to obtain missing data. We judged the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included nine trials with a total of 385 participants (272 adults and 113 children (aged five to 18 years)). Trial durations ranged from six months to two years. Only two of the studies were considered to have a low risk of bias for all the domains.\nBisphosphonates compared to control in people with cystic fibrosis who have not had a lung transplant\nSeven trials included only adult participants without lung transplants, one trial included both adults and children without lung transplantation (total of 238 adults and 113 children). We analysed adults (n = 238) and children (n = 113) separately.\nAdults\nThree trials assessed intravenous bisphosphonates (one assessed pamidronate and two assessed zoledronate) and five trials assessed oral bisphosphonates (one assessed risedronate and four assessed alendronate). Bisphosphonates were compared to either placebo or calcium (with or without additional vitamin D). Data showed no difference between treatment or control groups in new vertebral fractures at 12 months (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 2.09; 5 trials, 142 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and two trials (44 participants) reported no vertebral fractures at 24 months. There was no difference in non-vertebral fractures at 12 months (OR 2.11, 95% CI 0.18 to 25.35; 4 trials, 95 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and again two trials (44 participants) reported no non-vertebral fractures at 24 months. There was no difference in total fractures between groups at 12 months (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.50; 5 trials, 142 participants) and no fractures were reported in two trials (44 participants) at 24 months. At 12 months, bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density at the lumbar spine (mean difference (MD) 6.31, 95% CI 5.39 to 7.22; 6 trials, 171 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at the hip or femur (MD 4.41, 95% 3.44 to 5.37; 5 trials, 155 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in quality of life scores at 12 months (1 trial, 47 participants; low-certainty evidence), but bisphosphonates probably led to more adverse events (bone pain) at 12 months (OR 8.49, 95% CI 3.20 to 22.56; 7 trials, 206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nChildren\nThe single trial in 113 children compared oral alendronate to placebo. We graded all evidence as low certainty. At 12 months we found no difference between treatment and placebo in new vertebral fractures (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.13; 1 trial, 113 participants) and non-vertebral fractures (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.04; 1 trial, 113 participants). There was also no difference in total fractures (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.61; 1 trial, 113 participants). Bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density at the lumbar spine at 12 months (MD 14.50, 95% CI 12.91 to 16.09). There was no difference in bone or muscle pain (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.22), fever (MD 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.22) or gastrointestinal adverse events (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.26). The trial did not measure bone mineral density at the hip/femur or report on quality of life.\nBisphosphonates compared to control in people with cystic fibrosis who have had a lung transplant\nOne trial of 34 adults who had undergone lung transplantation compared intravenous pamidronate to no bisphosphonate treatment. It did not report at 12 months and we report the 24-month data (not assessed by GRADE). There was no difference in the number of fractures, either vertebral or non-vertebral. However, bone mineral density increased with treatment at the lumbar spine (MD 6.20, 95% CI 4.28 to 8.12) and femur (MD 7.90, 95% CI 5.78 to 10.02). No participants in either group reported either bone pain or fever. The trial did not measure quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOral and intravenous bisphosphonates may increase bone mineral density in people with cystic fibrosis, but there are insufficient data to determine whether treatment reduces fractures. Severe bone pain and flu-like symptoms may occur with intravenous bisphosphonates.\nBefore any firm conclusions can be drawn, trials in larger populations, including children, and of longer duration are needed to determine effects on fracture rate and survival. Additional trials are needed to determine if bone pain is more common or severe (or both) with the more potent zoledronate and if corticosteroids can ameliorate or prevent these adverse events. Future trials should also assess gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with oral bisphosphonates.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Cystic fibrosis is a serious genetic disorder that affects many organs in the body (e.g. lungs and pancreas). Around 23.5% of people with CF experience reduced bone mineral density (BMD), commonly known as osteoporosis, which increases the likelihood of bone fractures. The short-term and long-term effects of fractures (e.g. ribs and in the spine) may make lung disease worse, and hospitalisation more frequent. Bisphosphonates are drugs that increase BMD by slowing down how fast bone is resorbed. They are used to treat osteoporosis caused by the menopause or the use of corticosteroid drugs. We wanted to know if bisphosphonates affect the frequency of bone fractures, BMD and quality of life, and if they have any side effects in people with CF. This is an update of a previous review."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7639
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOsteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), and can often lead to severe pain in the orofacial region. Management options for TMJ OA include reassurance, occlusal appliances, physical therapy, medication in addition to several surgical modalities.\nObjectives\nTo investigate the effects of different surgical and non-surgical therapeutic options for the management of TMJ OA in adult patients.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 26 September 2011); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3); MEDLINE via Ovid (1950 to 26 September 2011); Embase via Ovid (1980 to 26 September 2011); and PEDro (1929 to 26 September 2011). There were no language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any form of non-surgical or surgical therapy for TMJ OA in adults over the age of 18 with clinical and/or radiological diagnosis of TMJ OA according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) guideline or compatible criteria.\nPrimary outcomes considered were pain/tenderness/discomfort in the TMJs or jaw muscles, self assessed range of mandibular movement and TMJ sounds. Secondary outcomes included the measurement of quality of life or patient satisfaction evaluated with a validated questionnaire, morphological changes of the TMJs assessed by imaging, TMJ sounds assessed by auscultation and any adverse effects.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened and extracted information and data from, and independently assessed the risk of bias in the included trials.\nMain results\nAlthough three RCTs were included in this review, pooling of data in a meta-analysis was not possible due to wide clinical diversity between the studies. The reports indicate a not dissimilar degree of effectiveness with intra-articular injections consisting of either sodium hyaluronate or corticosteroid preparations, and an equivalent pain reduction with diclofenac sodium as compared with occlusal splints. Glucosamine appeared to be just as effective as ibuprofen for the management of TMJ OA.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn view of the paucity of high level evidence for the effectiveness of interventions for the management of TMJ OA, small parallel group RCTs which include participants with a clear diagnosis of TMJ OA should be encouraged and especially studies evaluating some of the possible surgical interventions.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Authors working with Cochrane Oral Health carried out this review of existing studies, which includes evidence current up to 26 September 2011. This review includes three studies: two conducted in Europe and one in North America. All participants (114) were recruited in university clinics. One study compared intra-articular injections of sodium hyaluronate (a natural constituent of cartilage) with corticosteroids (betamethasone (an anti-inflammatory steroid)); the second study compared diclofenac sodium (a non-steroid anti-inflammatory drug) with occlusal splint therapy; and the third study compared glucosamine sulfate or ibuprofen (a non-steroid anti-inflammatory)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7640
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nWith potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors represent a potential treatment for symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. They may modulate the exuberant immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, a direct antiviral effect has been described. An understanding of the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is required.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) on clinical outcomes in individuals (outpatient or in-hospital) with any severity of COVID-19, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and the US Department of Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) Covid-19 Evidence Reviews to identify studies up to February 2022. We monitor newly published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) weekly using the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and have incorporated all new trials from this source until the first week of April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs that compared systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo) for the treatment of individuals with COVID-19. We used the WHO definitions of illness severity for COVID-19.\nData collection and analysis\nWe assessed risk of bias of primary outcomes using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the following primary outcomes: all-cause mortality (up to day 28), all-cause mortality (up to day 60), improvement in clinical status: alive and without need for in-hospital medical care (up to day 28), worsening of clinical status: new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death (up to day 28), adverse events (any grade), serious adverse events, secondary infections.\nMain results\nWe included six RCTs with 11,145 participants investigating systemic JAK inhibitors plus standard of care compared to standard of care alone (plus/minus placebo). Standard of care followed local protocols and included the application of glucocorticoids (five studies reported their use in a range of 70% to 95% of their participants; one study restricted glucocorticoid use to non-COVID-19 specific indications), antibiotic agents, anticoagulants, and antiviral agents, as well as non-pharmaceutical procedures. At study entry, about 65% of participants required low-flow oxygen, about 23% required high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, about 8% did not need any respiratory support, and only about 4% were intubated. We also identified 13 ongoing studies, and 9 studies that are completed or terminated and where classification is pending.\nIndividuals with moderate to severe disease\nFour studies investigated the single agent baricitinib (10,815 participants), one tofacitinib (289 participants), and one ruxolitinib (41 participants).\nSystemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (95 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 131 of 1000 participants in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.91; 6 studies, 11,145 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and decrease all-cause mortality at up to day 60 (125 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 181 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1626 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nSystemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status (discharged alive or hospitalised, but no longer requiring ongoing medical care) (801 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 778 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; 4 studies, 10,802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28) (154 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 172 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; 2 studies, 9417 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nSystemic JAK inhibitors probably make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events (any grade) (427 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 441 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; 3 studies, 1885 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events (160 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 202 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; 4 studies, 2901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference to the rate of secondary infection (111 of 1000 participants in the intervention group versus 113 of 1000 participants in the control group; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 4 studies, 10,041 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 disease or type of JAK inhibitor did not identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors.\nIndividuals with asymptomatic or mild disease\nWe did not identify any trial for this population.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19, moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease all-cause mortality. Baricitinib was the most often evaluated JAK inhibitor. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that they probably make little or no difference in improvement in clinical status. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that systemic JAK inhibitors probably decrease the risk of worsening of clinical status and make little or no difference in the rate of adverse events of any grade, whilst they probably decrease the occurrence of serious adverse events. Based on low-certainty evidence, JAK inhibitors may make little or no difference in the rate of secondary infection. Subgroup analysis by severity of COVID-19 or type of agent failed to identify specific subgroups which benefit more or less from systemic JAK inhibitors.\nCurrently, there is no evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic JAK inhibitors for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease (non-hospitalised individuals).\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 6 suitable studies involving 11,145 people with COVID-19. All studies compared systemic JAK inhibitors (baricitinib in 4 studies, tofacitinib in 1 study and ruxolitinib in 1 study) to usual care (in addition to placebo), and were performed in hospitalised people. We did not find studies performed in outpatients. Most participants needed oxygen supplementation through low-flow devices (7220 participants) and few (463 participants) were mechanically ventilated at the study entry. We also identified 13 ongoing studies and 9 studies that are completed/terminated but unpublished yet."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7641
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe removal of the acute appendix is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Open surgery associated with therapeutic efficacy has been the treatment of choice for acute appendicitis. However, in consequence of the evolution of endoscopic surgery, the operation can also be performed with minimally invasive surgery. Due to smaller incisions, the laparoscopic approach may be associated with reduced postoperative pain, reduced wound infection rate, and shorter time until return to normal activity.\nThis is an update of the review published in 2010.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) with regard to benefits and harms.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE and Embase (9 February 2018). We identified proposed and ongoing studies from World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and EU Clinical Trials Register (9 February 2018). We handsearched reference lists of identified studies and the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA versus OA in adults or children.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the Peto odds ratio (OR) for very rare outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (or standardised mean differences (SMD) if researchers used different scales such as quality of life) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe identified 85 studies involving 9765 participants. Seventy-five trials included 8520 adults and 10 trials included 1245 children. Most studies had risk of bias issues, with attrition bias being the largest source across studies due to incomplete outcome data.\nIn adults, pain intensity on day one was reduced by 0.75 cm on a 10 cm VAS after LA (MD -0.75, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.45; 20 RCTs; 2421 participants; low-quality evidence). Wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.51; 63 RCTs; 7612 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses was increased following LA (Peto OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.43; 53 RCTs; 6677 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\nThe length of hospital stay was shortened by one day after LA (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.70; 46 RCTs; 5127 participant; low-quality evidence). The time until return to normal activity occurred five days earlier after LA than after OA (MD -4.97, 95% CI -6.77 to -3.16; 17 RCTs; 1653 participants; low-quality evidence). Two studies showed better quality of life scores following LA, but used different scales, and therefore no pooled estimates were presented. One used the SF-36 questionnaire two weeks after surgery and the other used the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index six weeks and six months after surgery (both low-quality evidence).\nIn children, we found no differences in pain intensity on day one (MD -0.80, 95% CI -1.65 to 0.05; 1 RCT; 61 participants; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal abscesses after LA (Peto OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.22; 9 RCTs; 1185 participants; low-quality evidence) or time until return to normal activity (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.30; 1 RCT; 383 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.42; 10 RCTs; 1245 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and the length of hospital stay was shortened by 0.8 days after LA (MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.62; 6 RCTs; 316 participants; low-quality evidence). Quality of life was not reported in any of the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExcept for a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscesses after LA in adults, LA showed advantages over OA in pain intensity on day one, wound infections, length of hospital stay and time until return to normal activity in adults. In contrast, LA showed advantages over OA in wound infections and length of hospital stay in children. Two studies reported better quality of life scores in adults. No study reported this outcome in children. However, the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate and some of the clinical effects of LA were small and of limited clinical relevance. Future studies with low risk of bias should investigate, in particular, the quality of life in children.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In the right lower part of the abdomen there is a small blind ending intestinal tube, called the appendix. Inflammation of the appendix is called appendicitis which is most frequent in children and young adults. Most cases require emergency surgery in order to avoid rupture of the appendix into the abdomen. During the operation, called appendectomy, the inflamed appendix is surgically removed. The traditional surgical approach involves a small incision (about 5 cm or 2 inches) in the right lower abdominal wall. Alternatively, it is possible to remove the inflamed appendix using another surgical technique, known as laparoscopic appendectomy. This operation requires three very small incisions (each about 1 cm or 1/2 inch). Then the surgeon introduces a camera and instruments into the abdomen and removes the appendix."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7642
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMajor depressive disorders have a significant impact on children and adolescents, including on educational and vocational outcomes, interpersonal relationships, and physical and mental health and well-being. There is an association between major depressive disorder and suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide. Antidepressant medication is used in moderate to severe depression; there is now a range of newer generations of these medications.\nObjectives\nTo investigate, via network meta-analysis (NMA), the comparative effectiveness and safety of different newer generation antidepressants in children and adolescents with a diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD) in terms of depression, functioning, suicide-related outcomes and other adverse outcomes. The impact of age, treatment duration, baseline severity, and pharmaceutical industry funding was investigated on clinician-rated depression (CDRS-R) and suicide-related outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, the Cochrane Library (Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)), together with Ovid Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO till March 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials of six to 18 year olds of either sex and any ethnicity with clinically diagnosed major depressive disorder were included. Trials that compared the effectiveness of newer generation antidepressants with each other or with a placebo were included. Newer generation antidepressants included: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs); norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine reuptake inhibitors; norepinephrine dopamine disinhibitors (NDDIs); and tetracyclic antidepressants (TeCAs).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as Odds Ratios (ORs), and continuous data as Mean Difference (MD) for the following outcomes: depression symptom severity (clinician rated), response or remission of depression symptoms, depression symptom severity (self-rated), functioning, suicide related outcomes and overall adverse outcomes. Random-effects network meta-analyses were conducted in a frequentist framework using multivariate meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-analysis (CINeMA). We used \"informative statements\" to standardise the interpretation and description of the results.\nMain results\nTwenty-six studies were included. There were no data for the two primary outcomes (depressive disorder established via clinical diagnostic interview and suicide), therefore, the results comprise only secondary outcomes. Most antidepressants may be associated with a \"small and unimportant\" reduction in depression symptoms on the CDRS-R scale (range 17 to 113) compared with placebo (high certainty evidence: paroxetine: MD -1.43, 95% CI -3.90, 1.04; vilazodone: MD -0.84, 95% CI -3.03, 1.35; desvenlafaxine MD -0.07, 95% CI -3.51, 3.36; moderate certainty evidence: sertraline: MD -3.51, 95% CI -6.99, -0.04; fluoxetine: MD -2.84, 95% CI -4.12, -1.56; escitalopram: MD -2.62, 95% CI -5.29, 0.04; low certainty evidence: duloxetine: MD -2.70, 95% CI -5.03, -0.37; vortioxetine: MD 0.60, 95% CI -2.52, 3.72; very low certainty evidence for comparisons between other antidepressants and placebo).\nThere were \"small and unimportant\" differences between most antidepressants in reduction of depression symptoms (high- or moderate-certainty evidence).\nResults were similar across other outcomes of benefit.\nIn most studies risk of self-harm or suicide was an exclusion criterion for the study. Proportions of suicide-related outcomes were low for most included studies and 95% confidence intervals were wide for all comparisons. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mirtazapine (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.03, 8.04), duloxetine (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.72, 1.82), vilazodone (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68, 1.48), desvenlafaxine (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59, 1.52), citalopram (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.76, 3.87) or vortioxetine (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.29, 8.60) on suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo. There is low certainty evidence that escitalopram may \"at least slightly\" reduce odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43, 1.84). There is low certainty evidence that fluoxetine (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87, 1.86), paroxetine (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.85, 3.86), sertraline (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.60, 15.22), and venlafaxine (OR 13.84, 95% CI 1.79, 106.90) may \"at least slightly\" increase odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with placebo.\nThere is moderate certainty evidence that venlafaxine probably results in an \"at least slightly\" increased odds of suicide-related outcomes compared with desvenlafaxine (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56) and escitalopram (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01, 0.56). There was very low certainty evidence regarding other comparisons between antidepressants.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, methodological shortcomings of the randomised trials make it difficult to interpret the findings with regard to the efficacy and safety of newer antidepressant medications. Findings suggest that most newer antidepressants may reduce depression symptoms in a small and unimportant way compared with placebo. Furthermore, there are likely to be small and unimportant differences in the reduction of depression symptoms between the majority of antidepressants. However, our findings reflect the average effects of the antidepressants, and given depression is a heterogeneous condition, some individuals may experience a greater response. Guideline developers and others making recommendations might therefore consider whether a recommendation for the use of newer generation antidepressants is warranted for some individuals in some circumstances. Our findings suggest sertraline, escitalopram, duloxetine, as well as fluoxetine (which is currently the only treatment recommended for first-line prescribing) could be considered as a first option.\nChildren and adolescents considered at risk of suicide were frequently excluded from trials, so that we cannot be confident about the effects of these medications for these individuals. If an antidepressant is being considered for an individual, this should be done in consultation with the child/adolescent and their family/caregivers and it remains critical to ensure close monitoring of treatment effects and suicide-related outcomes (combined suicidal ideation and suicide attempt) in those treated with newer generation antidepressants, given findings that some of these medications may be associated with greater odds of these events. Consideration of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioural therapy, as per guideline recommendations, remains important.\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": "Most newer antidepressants probably reduce depression symptoms better than a placebo (a 'dummy' treatment that does not contain any medicine but looks identical to the medicine being tested). However, the reduction is small and may not be experienced as important by children and adolescents, their parents and caregivers, or clinicians. When different medications are compared against each other, there may be only small and unimportant differences between most of them for the reduction of symptoms.\nOur findings reflect what happens on average to individuals, but some individuals may experience a greater response. This might lead to recommendations being made for the use of antidepressants for some individuals in some circumstances. Our findings suggest that sertraline, escitalopram, duloxetine and fluoxetine can be used if medication is being considered.\nThe impact of medication on depression symptoms should be closely monitored by those prescribing the medication, especially as suicide-related thinking and behaviour may be increased in those taking these medications. Close monitoring of suicide-related behaviours is vital in those treated with new generation antidepressants."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7643
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe liver is affected by two of the most common groups of malignant tumours: primary liver tumours and liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma or other extrahepatic primary cancers. Liver metastases are significantly more common than primary liver cancer, and long-term survival rate after radical surgical treatment is approximately 50%. However, R0 resection (resection for cure) is not feasible in the majority of people; therefore, other treatments have to be considered. One possible option is based on the concept that the blood supply to hepatic tumours originates predominantly from the hepatic artery. Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) of the hepatic artery can be achieved by administering a chemotherapeutic drug followed by vascular occlusive agents, and can lead to selective necrosis of the liver tumour while it may leave normal parenchyma virtually unaffected. This can also be performed without chemotherapy, which is called bland transarterial embolisation (TAE).\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of TAE or TACE compared with no intervention or placebo in people with liver metastases.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and four more databases (December 2019). We also searched two trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration database (September 2019).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of TAE or TACE compared with no intervention or placebo for liver metastases.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We extracted information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, study design, and trial methods. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We resolved disagreements by discussion.\nMain results\nWe included one randomised clinical trial with 61 participants (43 male and 18 female) with colorectal cancer with liver metastases: 22 received transarterial embolisation (TAE; hepatic artery embolisation), 19 received transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE; 5-fluorouracil hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy with degradable microspheres), and 20 received 'no active therapeutic intervention' as a control. Most tumours were synchronous, unresectable metastases involving up to 75% of the liver. Participants were followed for a minimum of seven months. The trial was at high risk of bias. Very-low-certainty evidence found inconclusive results for mortality at 44 months between the TAE and TACE versus no intervention groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.06; 61 participants). Local recurrence was reported in 10 participants without any details about the group allocation. Very-low-certainty evidence found little or no difference in mortality between the TAE and no intervention groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 42 participants). Median survival was 7 months from trial entry (range 2 to 44 months) in the TAE group and 7.9 months (range 1 to 26 months) in the control group, and 8.7 months after diagnosis (range 2 to 49 months) in the TAE group and 9.6 months (range 1 to 27 months) in the control group. The trial authors reported the differences were not statistically significant. There were no reported side effects in the control group. In the TAE group, 18 participants experienced short-term symptoms of 'post-embolisation syndrome', which were relieved with symptomatic treatment; one participant also had a local puncture site haematoma. Very-low-certainty evidence found little or no difference in mortality between the TACE and no intervention groups (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; 39 participants). Median survival in the TACE group was 10.7 months (range 3 to 38 months) from trial entry, and 13.0 months (range 3 to 38 months) after diagnosis. The trial authors reported that differences between groups were not statistically significant. All participants experienced short-term nausea, with or without vomiting, immediately after treatment; one participant developed a wound infection, and one developed deep vein thrombosis. The trial did not measure failure to clear liver metastases, time to progression of liver metastases, tumour response measures, or health-related quality of life.\nCancer Research Campaign, a non-profit organisation, provided a grant for the trial; Pharmacia Ltd. delivered the Port-a-Cath arterial delivery systems and degradable starch microspheres.\nWe identified one ongoing trial comparing TACE plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in people with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who failed with first-line chemotherapy (NCT03783559).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on one, small randomised trial at high risk of bias, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of TAE or TACE versus no active therapeutic intervention on mortality for people with liver metastases as the true effect may be substantially different. The trial did not measure failure to clear liver metastases, time to progression of liver metastases, tumour response measures, or health-related quality of life. Short-term, minor adverse events were recorded in the intervention groups only.\nLarge trials, following current standards of conduct and reporting, are required to explore the benefits and harms of TAE or TACE compared with no intervention or placebo in people with resectable and unresectable liver metastasis.\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 judged the evidence to be of very low certainty. The identified trial was small, at high risk of bias, and with inconclusive results."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7644
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe treatment of distal (below the knee) deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is not clearly established. Distal DVT can either be treated with anticoagulation, or monitored with close follow-up to detect progression to the proximal veins (above the knee), which requires anticoagulation. Proponents of this monitoring strategy base their decision to withhold anticoagulation on the fact that progression is rare and most people can be spared from potential bleeding and other adverse effects of anticoagulation.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different treatment interventions for people with distal (below the knee) deep vein thrombosis (DVT).\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 12 February 2019. We also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the treatment of distal DVT.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Primary outcomes of interest were recurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE), DVT and major bleeding and follow up ranged from three months to two years. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with risk ratio (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe identified eight RCTs reporting on 1239 participants. Five trials randomised participants to anticoagulation for up to three months versus no anticoagulation. Three trials compared anticoagulation treatment for different time periods.\nAnticoagulant compared to no intervention or placebo for distal DVT treatment\nAnticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) reduced the risk of recurrent VTE during follow-up compared with participants receiving no anticoagulation (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.77; 5 studies, 496 participants; I2 = 3%; high-certainty evidence), and reduced the risk of recurrence of DVT (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.67; 5 studies, 496 participants; I2 = 0%; high-certainty evidence). There was no clear effect on risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.59; 4 studies, 480 participants; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in major bleeding with anticoagulation compared to placebo (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.62; 4 studies, 480 participants; I2 = 26%; low-certainty evidence). There was an increase in clinically relevant non-major bleeding events in the group treated with anticoagulants (RR 3.34, 95% CI 1.07 to 10.46; 2 studies, 322 participants; I2 = 0%; high-certainty evidence). There was one death, not related to PE or major bleeding, in the anticoagulation group.\nAnticoagulation for three months or more compared to anticoagulation for six weeks for distal DVT treatment\nThree RCTs of 736 participants compared three or more months of anticoagulation with six weeks of anticoagulation. Anticoagulation with a VKA for three months or more reduced the incidence of recurrent VTE to 5.8% compared with 13.9% in participants treated for six weeks (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.68; 3 studies, 736 participants; I2 = 50%; high-certainty evidence). The risk for recurrence of DVT was also reduced (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.64; 2 studies, 389 participants; I2 = 48%; high-certainty evidence), but there was probably little or no difference in PE (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.88; 2 studies, 389 participants; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in major bleeding events (RR 3.42, 95% CI 0.36 to 32.35; 2 studies, 389 participants; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or clinically relevant non-major bleeding events (RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.42; 2 studies, 389 participants; I2 = 1%; low-certainty evidence) between three months or more of treatment and six weeks of treatment. There were no reports for overall mortality or PE and major bleeding-related deaths.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur review found a benefit for people with distal DVT treated with anticoagulation therapy using VKA with little or no difference in major bleeding events although there was an increase in clinically relevant non-major bleeding when compared to no intervention or placebo. The small number of participants in this meta-analysis and strength of evidence prompts a call for more research regarding the treatment of distal DVT. RCTs comparing different treatments and different treatment periods with placebo or compression therapy, are required.\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": "Our review found a benefit for people with distal DVT treated with anticoagulation therapy with little or no clear difference in major bleeding events, although there was an increase in clinically relevant non-major bleeding when compared with no treatment or placebo. The small number of participants in this meta-analysis and strength of evidence suggests more research regarding the treatment of distal DVT is needed. Randomised controlled trials comparing different treatments and different treatment periods with placebo or compression therapy are required."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7645
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nWorldwide, there is an increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Metformin is still the recommended first-line glucose-lowering drug for people with T2DM. Despite this, the effects of metformin on patient-important outcomes are still not clarified.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of metformin monotherapy in adults with T2DM.\nSearch methods\nWe based our search on a systematic report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and topped-up the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of included trials and systematic reviews, as well as health technology assessment reports and medical agencies. The date of the last search for all databases was 2 December 2019, except Embase (searched up 28 April 2017).\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one year's duration comparing metformin monotherapy with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs in adults with T2DM.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles/records, assessed risk of bias, and extracted outcome data independently. We resolved discrepancies by involvement of a third review author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model with investigation of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence by using the GRADE instrument.\nMain results\nWe included 18 RCTs with multiple study arms (N = 10,680). The percentage of participants finishing the trials was approximately 58% in all groups. Treatment duration ranged from one to 10.7 years. We judged no trials to be at low risk of bias on all 'Risk of bias' domains. The main outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cardiovascular mortality (CVM), non-fatal myocardial infarction (NFMI), non-fatal stroke (NFS), and end-stage renal disease (ESRD).\nTwo trials compared metformin (N = 370) with insulin (N = 454). Neither trial reported on all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI, NFS or ESRD. One trial provided information on HRQoL but did not show a substantial difference between the interventions.\nSeven trials compared metformin with sulphonylureas. Four trials reported on all-cause mortality: in three trials no participant died, and in the remaining trial 31/1454 participants (2.1%) in the metformin group died compared with 31/1441 participants (2.2%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on SAE: in two trials no SAE occurred (186 participants); in the other trial 331/1454 participants (22.8%) in the metformin group experienced a SAE compared with 308/1441 participants (21.4%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported on CVM: in one trial no CVM was observed and in the other trial 4/1441 participants (0.3%) in the metformin group died of cardiovascular reasons compared with 8/1447 participants (0.6%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred, and in the other trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 15/1441 participants (1.0%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). One trial reported no NFS occurred (very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD.\nSeven trials compared metformin with thiazolidinediones (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). Five trials reported on all-cause mortality: in two trials no participant died; the overall RR was 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39; P = 0.57; 5 trials; 4402 participants). Four trials reported on SAE, the RR was 0,95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09; P = 0.49; 3208 participants. Four trials reported on CVM, the RR was 0.71, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.39; P = 0.58; 3211 participants. Three trial reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred and in one trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 25/1456 participants (1.7%) in the thiazolidinedione group. One trial reported no NFS occurred. No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD.\nThree trials compared metformin with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (one trial each with saxagliptin, sitagliptin, vildagliptin with altogether 1977 participants). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI and NFS (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes).\nOne trial compared metformin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue (very low-certainty evidence for all reported outcomes). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, CVM, NFMI and NFS. One or more SAEs were reported in 16/268 (6.0%) of the participants allocated to metformin compared with 35/539 (6.5%) of the participants allocated to a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue. HRQoL or ESRD were not reported.\nOne trial compared metformin with meglitinide and two trials compared metformin with no intervention. No deaths or SAEs occurred (very low-certainty evidence)\nno other patient-important outcomes were reported.\nNo trial compared metformin with placebo or a behaviour changing interventions.\nFour ongoing trials with 5824 participants are likely to report one or more of our outcomes of interest and are estimated to be completed between 2018 and 2024. Furthermore, 24 trials with 2369 participants are awaiting assessment.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is no clear evidence whether metformin monotherapy compared with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs influences patient-important outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we look for?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched medical databases for studies that:— were randomised controlled trials: randomised controlled trials are medical studies where participants are put randomly into one of the treatment groups. This type of study provides the most reliable evidence about whether treatments make a difference;— included people aged 18 years or older, with type 2 diabetes;— compared metformin with: a placebo (fake treatment); no treatment; diet programmes to help people eat well; or another medicine that lowers blood sugar levels;— lasted at least one year."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7646
|
[
{
"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: \"Disability (lower scores mean lower disability)\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "- People who took methotrexate rated their disability to be 0.27 points lower on a scale of 0 to 3 after 3 to 12 months with methotrexate when compared to placebo (9% absolute improvement).\n- People who took methotrexate rated their disability to be between 0.39 and 1.04.\n- People who took placebo rated their disability to be between 0.53 and 1.34."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7647
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe frequency of skin ulceration makes an important contributor to the morbidity burden in people with sickle cell disease. Many treatment options are available to the healthcare professional, although it is uncertain which treatments have been assessed for effectiveness in people with sickle cell disease. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the clinical effectiveness and harms of interventions for treating leg ulcers in people with sickle cell disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register.\nWe searched LILACS (1982 to January 2020), ISI Web of Knowledge (1985 to January 2020), and the Clinical Trials Search Portal of the World Health Organization (January 2020). We checked the reference lists of all the trials identified. We also contacted those groups or individuals who may have completed relevant randomised trials in this area.\nDate of the last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 13 January 2020; date of the last search of the Cochrane Wounds Group Trials Register: 17 February 2017.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of interventions for treating leg ulcers in people with sickle cell disease compared to placebo or an alternative treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected studies for inclusion. All three authors independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies and extracted data. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nSix studies met the inclusion criteria (198 participants with 250 ulcers). Each trial investigated a different intervention and within this review we have grouped these as systemic pharmaceutical interventions (L-cartinine, arginine butyrate, isoxsuprine) and topical pharmaceutical interventions (Solcoseryl® cream, arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) peptide dressing and topical antibiotics). No trials on non-pharmaceutical interventions were included in the review. All trials had an overall unclear or high risk of bias, and drug companies sponsored four of them. We were unable to pool findings due to the heterogeneity in outcome definitions, and inconsistency between the units of randomisation and analysis.\nThree interventions reported on the change in ulcer size (arginine butyrate, RGD peptide, L-cartinine). Of these, only arginine butyrate showed a reduction of ulcer size compared with a control group, mean reduction -5.10 cm² (95% CI -9.65 to -0.55), but we are uncertain whether this reduces ulcer size compared to standard care alone as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. Three trials reported on complete leg ulcer closure (isoxsuprine, arginine butyrate, RGD peptide matrix; very low quality of evidence). None reported a clinical benefit. No trial reported on: the time to complete ulcer healing; ulcer-free survival following treatment for sickle cell leg ulcers; quality of life measures; incidence of amputation or harms.\nAuthors' conclusions\nGiven the very low quality of the evidence identified in this updated Cochrane Review we are uncertain whether any of the assessed pharmaceutical interventions reduce ulcer size or result in leg ulcer closure in treated participants compared to controls. However, this intervention was assessed as having a high risk of bias due to inadequacies in the single trial report. Other included studies were also assessed as having an unclear or high risk of bias. The harm profile of the all interventions remains inconclusive.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to: 13 January 2020."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7648
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSickle cell disease is one of the most common and severe genetic disorders in the world. It can be broadly divided into two distinct clinical phenotypes characterized by either haemolysis or vaso-occlusion. Pain is the most prominent symptom of vaso-occlusion, and hypercoagulability is a well-established pathogenic phenomenon in people with sickle cell disease. Low-molecular-weight heparins might control this hypercoagulable state through their anticoagulant effect. This is an update of a previously published version of this review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of low-molecular-weight heparins for managing vaso-occlusive crises in people with sickle cell disease.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches. We also searched abstract books of conference proceedings and several online trials registries for ongoing trials.\nDate of the last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 28 September 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled clinical trials and controlled clinical trials that assessed the effects of low-molecular-weight heparins in the management of vaso-occlusive crises in people with sickle cell disease.\nData collection and analysis\nStudy selection, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and analyses were carried out independently by the two review authors.\nMain results\nTwo studies comprising 287 participants were included. One study (with an overall unclear to high risk of bias) involved 253 participants and the quality of the evidence for most outcomes was very low. This study, reported that pain severity at day two and day three was lower in the tinzaparin group than in the placebo group (P < 0.01, analysis of variance (ANOVA)) and additionally at day 4 (P < 0.05 (ANOVA)). Thus tinzaparin resulted in more rapid resolution of pain, as measured with a numerical pain scale. The mean difference in duration of painful crises was statistically significant at -1.78 days in favour of the tinzaparin group (95% confidence interval -1.94 to -1.62). Participants treated with tinzaparin had statistically significantly fewer hospitalisation days than participants in the group treated with placebo, with a mean difference of -4.98 days (95% confidence interval -5.48 to -4.48). Two minor bleeding events were reported as adverse events in the tinzaparin group, and none were reported in the placebo group. The second study (unclear risk of bias) including 34 participants and was a conference abstract with limited data and only addressed one of the predefined outcomes of the review; i.e. pain intensity. After one day pain intensity reduced more, as reported on a visual analogue scale, in the dalteparin group than in the placebo group, mean difference -1.30 (95% confidence interval -1.60 to -1.00), with the quality of evidence rated very low. The most important reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were serious risk of bias and imprecision (due to low sample size or low occurrence of events).\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the results of two studies, evidence is incomplete to support or refute the effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparins in people with sickle cell disease. Vaso-occlusive crises are extremely debilitating for sufferers of sickle cell disease; therefore well-designed placebo-controlled studies with other types of low-molecular-weight heparins, and in participants with different genotypes of sickle cell disease, still need to be carried out to confirm or dismiss the results of this single study.\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": "Sickle cell disease is one of the most common and severe genetic blood disorders in the world. As the result of a change in the haemoglobin gene, red blood cells are transformed into cells with a sickle shape. This sickling of red blood cells results in various complications, amongst which are vaso-occlusive crises. In a vaso-occlusive crisis, the sickled red blood cells tend to clot together and block blood flow,which leads to pain in the organ involved. The pain can be very debilitating and often requires administration of morphine. Medication that prevents blood from clotting in the vessels might represent a useful contribution to existing treatment options for vaso-occlusive crises."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7649
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHypertonic saline enhances mucociliary clearance and may lessen the destructive inflammatory process in the airways. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo investigate efficacy and tolerability of nebulised hypertonic saline treatment in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) compared to placebo or other treatments that enhance mucociliary clearance.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched ongoing trials databases.\nMost recent search: 25 April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials assessing hypertonic saline compared to placebo or other mucolytic therapy, for any duration or dose regimen in people with CF (any age or disease severity).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently reviewed all identified trials and data, and assessed trial quality. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. For cross-over trials we stipulated a one-week washout period. We planned to use results from a paired analysis in the review, but this was only possible in one trial. For other cross-over trials, we chose to treat the trials as if they were parallel.\nMain results\nWe included 24 trials (1318 participants, aged one month to 56 years); we excluded 29 trials, two trials are ongoing and six are awaiting classification. We judged 15 of the 24 included trials to have a high risk of bias due to participants' ability to discern the taste of the solutions.\nHypertonic saline 3% to 7% versus placebo (stable disease)\nWe are uncertain whether the regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline in stable lung disease leads to an improvement in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted at four weeks, (mean difference (MD) 3.30%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 5.89; 4 trials, 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In preschool children we found no difference in lung clearance index (LCI) at four weeks, but a small improvement after 48 weeks of treatment with hypertonic saline compared to isotonic saline (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.19; 2 trials, 192 participants). We are also uncertain whether hypertonic saline made a difference to mucociliary clearance, pulmonary exacerbations or adverse events compared to placebo.\nHypertonic saline versus control (acute exacerbation)\nTwo trials compared hypertonic saline to control, but only one provided data. There may be little or no difference in lung function measured by FEV1 % predicted after hypertonic saline compared to isotonic saline (MD 5.10%, 95% CI -14.67 to 24.87; 1 trial, 130 participants). Neither trial reported any deaths or measures of sputum clearance. There were no serious adverse events.\nHypertonic saline versus rhDNase\nThree trials compared a similar dose of hypertonic saline to recombinant deoxyribonuclease (rhDNase); two trials (61 participants) provided data for inclusion in the review. We are uncertain whether there was an effect of hypertonic saline on FEV1 % predicted after three weeks (MD 1.60%, 95% CI -7.96 to 11.16; 1 trial, 14 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At three months, rhDNase may lead to a greater increase in FEV1 % predicted than hypertonic saline (5 mL twice daily) at 12 weeks in participants with moderate to severe lung disease (MD 8.00%, 95% CI 2.00 to 14.00; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether adverse events differed between the two treatments. No deaths were reported.\nHypertonic saline versus amiloride\nOne trial (12 participants) compared hypertonic saline to amiloride but did not report on most of our outcomes. The trial found that there was no difference between treatments in measures of sputum clearance (very low-certainty evidence).\nHypertonic saline compared with sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate (Mistabron®)\nOne trial (29 participants) compared hypertonic saline to sodium-2-mercaptoethane sulphonate. The trial did not measure our primary outcomes. There was no difference between treatments in any measures of sputum clearance, courses of antibiotics or adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).\nHypertonic saline versus mannitol\nOne trial (12 participants) compared hypertonic saline to mannitol, but did not report lung function at relevant time points for this review; there were no differences in sputum clearance, but mannitol was reported to be more 'irritating' (very low-certainty evidence).\nHypertonic saline versus xylitol\nTwo trials compared hypertonic saline to xylitol, but we are uncertain whether there is any difference in FEV1 % predicted or median time to exacerbation between groups (very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes were reported in the review.\nHypertonic saline 7% versus hypertonic saline 3%\nWe are uncertain whether there was an improvement in FEV1 % predicted after treatment with 7% hypertonic saline compared with 3% (very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are very uncertain if regular use of nebulised hypertonic saline by adults and children over the age of 12 years with CF results in an improvement in lung function after four weeks (three trials; very low-certainty evidence); there was no difference seen at 48 weeks (one trial; low-certainty evidence). Hypertonic saline improved LCI modestly in children under the age of six years.\nEvidence from one small cross-over trial in children indicates that rhDNase may lead to better lung function than hypertonic saline at three months; qualifying this, we highlight that while the study did demonstrate that the improvement in FEV1 was greater with daily rhDNase, there were no differences seen in any of the secondary outcomes.\nHypertonic saline does appear to be an effective adjunct to physiotherapy during acute exacerbations of lung disease in adults. However, for the outcomes assessed, the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low at best, according to the GRADE criteria.\nThe role of hypertonic saline in conjunction with cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator therapy now needs to be considered, and future research needs to focus on this aspect.\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 CF produce large amounts of thick mucus which is difficult to clear and blocks up their airways. Chest physiotherapy or medication, e.g. hypertonic saline, or both combined, are used to try and clear this mucus from the airways. Hypertonic saline is water with a concentration of 3% to 7% salt and is inhaled as a fine mist. This is an update of an earlier review."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7650
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nProblems with cognition, particularly memory, are common in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and can affect their ability to complete daily activities and can negatively affect quality of life. Over the last few years, there has been considerable growth in the number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of memory rehabilitation in MS. To guide clinicians and researchers, this review provides an overview of the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation for people with MS.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether people with MS who received memory rehabilitation compared to those who received no treatment, or an active control showed better immediate, intermediate, or longer-term outcomes in their:\n1. memory functions,\n2. other cognitive abilities, and\n3. functional abilities, in terms of activities of daily living, mood, and quality of life.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL which includes Clinicaltrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Portal, Embase and PubMed (MEDLINE), and the following electronic databases (6 September 2020): CINAHL, LILACS, the NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio database, The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, PsycINFO, and CAB Abstracts.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected RCTs or quasi-RCTs of memory rehabilitation or cognitive rehabilitation for people with MS in which a memory rehabilitation treatment group was compared with a control group. Selection was conducted independently first and then confirmed through group discussion. We excluded studies that included participants whose memory deficits were the result of conditions other than MS, unless we could identify a subgroup of participants with MS with separate results.\nData collection and analysis\nEight review authors were involved in this update in terms of study selection, quality assessment, data extraction and manuscript review. We contacted investigators of primary studies for further information where required. We conducted data analysis and synthesis in accordance with Cochrane methods. We performed a 'best evidence' synthesis based on the methodological quality of the primary studies included. Outcomes were considered separately for ‘immediate’ (within the first month after completion of intervention), ‘intermediate’ (one to six months), and ‘longer-term’ (more than six months) time points.\nMain results\nWe added 29 studies during this update, bringing the total to 44 studies, involving 2714 participants. The interventions involved various memory retraining techniques, such as computerised programmes and training on using internal and external memory aids. Control groups varied in format from assessment-only groups, discussion and games, non-specific cognitive retraining, and attention or visuospatial training. The risk of bias amongst the included studies was generally low, but we found eight studies to have high risk of bias related to certain aspects of their methodology.\nIn this abstract, we are only reporting outcomes at the intermediate timepoint (i.e., between one and six months). We found a slight difference between groups for subjective memory (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.35; 11 studies; 1045 participants; high-quality evidence) and quality of life (SMD 0.30, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.58; 6 studies; 683 participants; high-quality evidence) favoring the memory rehabilitation group. There was a small difference between groups for verbal memory (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; 6 studies; 753 participants; low-quality evidence) and information processing (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.54; 8 studies; 933 participants; low-quality evidence), favoring the memory rehabilitation group.\nWe found little to no difference between groups for visual memory (SMD 0.20, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.50; 6 studies; 751 participants; moderate-quality evidence), working memory (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.40; 8 studies; 821 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or activities of daily living (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24; 4 studies; 400 participants; high-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence to support the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation on some outcomes assessed in this review at intermediate follow-up. The evidence suggests that memory rehabilitation results in between-group differences favoring the memory rehabilitation group at the intermediate time point for subjective memory, verbal memory, information processing, and quality of life outcomes, suggesting that memory rehabilitation is beneficial and meaningful to people with MS. There are differential effects of memory rehabilitation based on the quality of the trials, with studies of high risk of bias inflating (positive) outcomes. Further robust, large-scale, multi-centre RCTs, with better quality reporting, using ecologically valid outcome assessments (including health economic outcomes) assessed at longer-term time points are still needed to be certain about the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation in people with MS.\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 multiple sclerosis (MS) often struggle with memory problems, which can lead to difficulties in everyday life. Memory rehabilitation is offered to help people cope with memory problems, enhance their ability to perform everyday activities, and to increase independence by reducing forgetting. Such rehabilitation can involve the use of specific techniques and strategies to change the way a person tries to remember, store, or retrieve memories. However, it is unclear whether memory rehabilitation is effective in reducing forgetting or improving performance of daily activities. Historically, there were few good-quality studies that investigated the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation in people with MS, but lately there have been some larger studies. Therefore, we wanted to know whether the evidence of the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation has changed since the previous version of our review."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7651
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCarpal tunnel syndrome is a common problem and surgical decompression of the carpal tunnel is the most effective treatment. After surgical decompression, the palmar skin may be closed using either absorbable or non-absorbable sutures. To date, there is conflicting evidence regarding the ideal suture material and this formed the rationale for our review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after elective carpal tunnel decompression surgery in adults on postoperative pain, hand function, scar satisfaction, wound inflammation and adverse events.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases on 30 October 2017: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two clinical trials registries on 30 October 2017.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing absorbable and non-absorbable sutures for skin closure after any form of carpal tunnel decompression surgery in adults.\nData collection and analysis\nThe unit of analysis was the hand rather than the patient. We performed meta-analysis of direct comparisons to generate standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in pain scores and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes, such as wound inflammation. The primary outcome was postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes included hand function, scar satisfaction, scar inflammation and adverse events (complications). We assessed the quality of evidence for key outcomes using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included five randomised trials (255 participants). The trials were all European (UK, Republic of Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands). Where quoted, the mean age of participants was between 48 and 53 years. The trials measured outcomes between one and 12 weeks postoperatively.\nMeta-analysis of postoperative pain scores for absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures at 10 days following open carpal tunnel decompression (OCTD) produced a SMD of 0.03 (95% CI -0.43 to 0.48; 3 studies, number of participants (N) = 137; I2 = 43%); the SMD suggests little or no difference, but with a high degree of uncertainty because of very low-quality evidence. At 10 days following endoscopic carpal tunnel decompression (ECTD), the SMD for postoperative pain with use of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures was -0.81 (95% CI -1.36 to -0.25; 1 study; N = 54); although the SMD is consistent with a large effect, the very low-quality evidence means the results are very uncertain. Only the OCTD studies provided pain data at 6 weeks, when the SMD was 0.06 (95% CI -0.72 to 0.84; 4 studies; N = 175; I2 = 84%), which indicates little or no evidence of difference, but with a high degree of uncertainty (very low-quality evidence). The RR for wound inflammation using absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures after OCTD was 2.28 (95% CI 0.24 to 21.91; N = 95; I2 = 90%) and after ECTD 0.93 (95% CI 0.06 to 14.09; 1 study, N = 54). Any difference in effect on wound inflammation is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low. One study reported postoperative hand function but found no evidence of a difference between suture types at two weeks (mean difference (MD) -0.10, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.33, N = 36), with similar findings at six and 12 weeks. Only the ECTD trial reported scar satisfaction, with 25 out of 28 people reporting a 'nice' result in the absorbable-suture group, versus 18 out of 26 in the group who received non-absorbable sutures (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.72, N = 54). These findings are also very uncertain as we judged the quality of the evidence to be very low. All studies were at high risk of bias for most domains. No trials reported adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIt is uncertain whether absorbable sutures confer better, worse or equivalent outcomes compared to non-absorbable sutures following carpal tunnel decompression, because the quality of evidence is very low. Use of absorbable suture eliminates the need for suture removal, which could confer considerable savings to patients and healthcare providers alike. We need rigorously-performed, non-inferiority randomised trials with economic analyses to inform choice of suture.\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": "Following a thorough search, we found five studies (with a total of 255 participants) that compared these stitches. All the studies had some problems in design or the way they were performed. The participants in four studies had open carpal tunnel surgery and in one study they had endoscopic carpal tunnel surgery.\nDue to the very-low quality of the evidence contributing to our analyses, it is uncertain whether there are differences between absorbable and non-absorbable stitches for pain at 10 days or 6 weeks after surgery, hand function, scar satisfaction or wound inflammation. The studies did not report side effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7652
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnkylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic inflammatory disease of unknown cause and affects mainly the spine, but can also affect other joints. Disease progression may result in loss of mobility and function. Sulfasalazine is a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug used in the treatment of AS. However, its efficacy remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of sulfasalazine for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS).\nSearch methods\nWe searched for relevant randomized and quasi-randomized trials in any language, using the following sources: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 11); MEDLINE (2003 to 28 November 2013); EMBASE (2003 to 27 November 2013); CINAHL (2003 to 28 November 2013); Ovid MEDLINE data, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (28 November 2013); and the reference sections of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe evaluated randomized and quasi-randomized trials examining the benefits and harms of sulfasalazine on AS.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently reviewed unblinded trial reports according to the selection criteria. Disagreements on the inclusion of the studies were resolved, when necessary, by recourse to a third review author. The same authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included trials and entered the data extracted from the included trials. We combined results using mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data.\nWe restructured outcome measures for this update based on recommendations from the editorial group. Major outcomes included: pain, Bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index (BASDAI), Bath ankylosing spondylitis function index (BASFI), Bath ankylosing spondylitis metrology index (BASMI), radiographic progression, total number of withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events.\nMain results\nWe did not add any new studies to this review following the updated search. In the original review, we included 11 studies in the analysis, involving 895 participants in total. All included studies compared sulfasalazine with placebo. We judged most of the studies as low risk of bias or unclear risk of bias in five domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessment, selective reporting, and other sources of bias). However, for incomplete outcome data, we only judged one trial at low risk of bias.\nNone of the included trials assessed BASDAI, BASFI, BASMI or radiographic progression. Different parameters were used to assess pain. The pooled MD for back pain measured on a 0 to 100 mm visual analogue scale was -2.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) -6.33 to 0.41; absolute risk difference 3%, 95% CI 1% to 6%; 6 trials). Compared to placebo, a significantly higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.15; absolute risk difference 4%, 95% CI 0.4% to 8.8%; 11 trials) was found in the sulfasalazine group. A serious adverse reaction was reported in one patient taking sulfasalazine (Peto odds ratio 7.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 378.16).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is not enough evidence to support any benefit of sulfasalazine in reducing pain, disease activity, radiographic progression, or improving physical function and spinal mobility in the treatment of AS. A statistically significant benefit in reducing the erythrocyte sedimentation rate and easing spinal stiffness was mentioned in the previous version. However, the effect size was very small and not clinically meaningful. More withdrawals because of side effects occurred with sulfasalazine. Further studies, with larger sample sizes, longer duration, and using validated outcome measures are needed to verify the uncertainty of sulfasalazine in AS.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Total number of withdrawals due to adverse events\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "- 23 more people taking sulfasalazine withdrew due to adverse events than those taking placebo.\n- 13 out of 100 people taking sulfasalazine withdrew due to adverse events.\n- 9 out of 100 people taking fake pills withdrew due to adverse events."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7653
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTumour lysis syndrome (TLS) is a serious complication of malignancies and can result in renal failure or death. Previous reviews did not find clear evidence of benefit of urate oxidase in children with cancer. This review is the second update of a previously published Cochrane review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects and safety of urate oxidase for the prevention and treatment of TLS in children with malignancies.\nSearch methods\nIn March 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. In addition, we searched the reference lists of all identified relevant papers, trials registers and other databases. We also screened conference proceedings and we contacted experts in the field and the manufacturer of rasburicase, Sanofi-aventis.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT) of urate oxidase for the prevention or treatment of TLS in children under 18 years with any malignancy.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted trial data and assessed individual trial quality. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials, involving 471 participants in the treatment groups and 603 participants in the control groups. No new studies were identified in the update. One RCT and five CCTs compared urate oxidase and allopurinol. Three trials tested Uricozyme, and three trials tested rasburicase for the prevention of TLS.\nThe RCT did not evaluate the primary outcome (incidence of clinical TLS). It showed no clear evidence of a difference in mortality (both all-cause mortality (Fisher's exact test P = 0.23) and mortality due to TLS (no deaths in either group)), renal failure (Fisher's exact test P = 0.46), and adverse effects between the treatment and the control groups (Fisher's exact test P = 1.0). The frequency of normalisation of uric acid at four hours (10 out of 10 participants in the treatment group versus zero out of nine participants in the control group, Fisher's exact test P < 0.001) and area under the curve of uric acid at four days (MD -201.00 mg/dLhr, 95% CI -258.05 mg/dLhr to -143.95 mg/dLhr; P < 0.00001) were significantly better in the treatment group.\nOne CCT evaluated the primary outcome; no clear evidence of a difference was identified between the treatment and the control groups (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.33; P = 0.34). Pooled results of three CCTs showed significantly lower mortality due to TLS in the treatment group (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.89; P = 0.04); no clear evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality was identified between the groups (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.42; P = 0.26). Pooled results from five CCTs showed significantly lower incidence of renal failure in the treatment group (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.89; P = 0.03). Results of CCTs also showed significantly lower uric acid in the treatment group at two days (three CCTs: MD -3.80 mg/dL, 95% CI -7.37 mg/dL to -0.24 mg/dL; P = 0.04), three days (two CCTs: MD -3.13 mg/dL, 95% CI -6.12 mg/dL to -0.14 mg/dL; P = 0.04), four days (two CCTs: MD -4.60 mg/dL, 95% CI -6.39 mg/dL to -2.81 mg/dL; P < 0.00001), and seven days (one CCT: MD -1.74 mg/dL, 95% CI -3.01 mg/dL to -0.47 mg/dL; P = 0.007) after therapy, but not one day (three CCTs: MD -3.00 mg/dL, 95% CI -7.61 mg/dL to 1.60 mg/dL; P = 0.2), five days (one CCT: MD -1.02 mg/dL, 95% CI -2.24 mg/dL to 0.20 mg/dL; P = 0.1), and 12 days (one CCT: MD -0.80 mg/dL, 95% CI -2.51 mg/dL to 0.91 mg/dL; P = 0.36) after therapy. Pooled results from three CCTs showed higher frequency of adverse effects in participants who received urate oxidase (RR 9.10, 95% CI 1.29 to 64.00; P = 0.03).\nAnother included RCT, with 30 participants, compared different doses of rasburicase (0.2 mg/kg versus 0.15 mg/kg). The primary outcome was not evaluated. No clear evidence of a difference in mortality (all-cause mortality (Fisher's exact test P = 1.0) and mortality due to TLS (no deaths in both groups)) and renal failure (no renal failure in both groups) was identified. It demonstrated no clear evidence of a difference in uric acid normalisation (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.28; P = 0.49) and uric acid level at four hours (MD 8.10%, 95% CI -0.99% to 17.19%; P = 0.08). Common adverse events of urate oxidase included hypersensitivity, haemolysis, and anaemia, but no clear evidence of a difference between treatment groups was identified (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.48; P = 0.42).\nThe quality of evidence ranks from very low to low because of imprecise results, and all included trials were highly susceptible to biases.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough urate oxidase might be effective in reducing serum uric acid, it is unclear whether it reduces clinical TLS, renal failure, or mortality. Adverse effects might be more common for urate oxidase compared with allopurinol. Clinicians should weigh the potential benefits of reducing uric acid and uncertain benefits of preventing mortality or renal failure from TLS against the potential risk of adverse effects.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The current systematic review of (randomised) controlled clinical trials found that although urate oxidase might be effective in reducing serum uric acid level, it has not been confirmed to reduce renal failure or mortality from TLS in children with cancer. Adverse effects might be more common in people who receive urate oxidase compared with allopurinol. Urate oxidase needs to be further evaluated, especially in high-risk patients, such as those with high-risk leukaemia and lymphoma."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7654
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA glioblastoma is a fatal type of brain tumour for which the standard of care is maximum surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy, when possible. Age is an important consideration in this disease, as older age is associated with shorter survival and a higher risk of treatment-related toxicity.\nObjectives\nTo determine the most effective and best-tolerated approaches for the treatment of elderly people with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. To summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs and cost-effectiveness associated with these approaches.\nSearch methods\nWe searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase to 3 April 2019, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) up to database closure. We handsearched clinical trial registries and selected neuro-oncology society conference proceedings from the past five years.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials (RCTs) of treatments for glioblastoma in elderly people. We defined ‘elderly' as 70+ years but included studies defining ‘elderly' as over 65+ years if so reported.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods for study selection and data extraction. Where sufficient data were available, treatment options were compared in a network meta-analysis (NMA) using Stata software (version 15.1). For outcomes with insufficient data for NMA, pairwise meta-analysis were conducted in RevMan. The GRADE approach was used to grade the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 12 RCTs involving approximately 1818 participants. Six were conducted exclusively among elderly people (either defined as 65 years or older or 70 years or older) with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, the other six reported data for an elderly subgroup among a broader age range of participants. Most participants were capable of self-care. Study quality was commonly undermined by lack of outcome assessor blinding and attrition. NMA was only possible for overall survival; other analyses were pair-wise meta-analyses or narrative syntheses.\nSeven trials contributed to the NMA for overall survival, with interventions including supportive care only (one trial arm); hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT40; four trial arms); standard radiotherapy (RT60; five trial arms); temozolomide (TMZ; three trial arms); chemoradiotherapy (CRT; three trial arms); bevacizumab with chemoradiotherapy (BEV_CRT; one trial arm); and bevacizumab with radiotherapy (BEV_RT). Compared with supportive care only, NMA evidence suggested that all treatments apart from BEV_RT prolonged survival to some extent.\nOverall survival\nHigh-certainty evidence shows that CRT prolongs overall survival (OS) compared with RT40 (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.80) and low-certainty evidence suggests that CRT may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ (TMZ versus CRT: HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.98). Low-certainty evidence also suggests that adding BEV to CRT may make little or no difference (BEV_CRT versus CRT: HR 0.83, 95% CrI 0.48 to 1.44). We could not compare the survival effects of CRT with different radiotherapy fractionation schedules (60 Gy/30 fractions and 40 Gy/15 fractions) due to a lack of data. When treatments were ranked according to their effects on OS, CRT ranked higher than TMZ, RT and supportive care only, with the latter ranked last. BEV plus RT was the only treatment for which there was no clear benefit in OS over supportive care only.\nOne trial comparing tumour treating fields (TTF) plus adjuvant chemotherapy (TTF_AC) with adjuvant chemotherapy alone could not be included in the NMA as participants were randomised after receiving concomitant chemoradiotherapy, not before. Findings from the trial suggest that the intervention probably improves overall survival in this selected patient population.\nWe were unable to perform NMA for other outcomes due to insufficient data. Pairwise analyses were conducted for the following.\nQuality of life\nModerate-certainty narrative evidence suggests that overall, there may be little difference in QoL between TMZ and RT, except for discomfort from communication deficits, which are probably more common with RT (1 study, 306 participants, P = 0.002). Data on QoL for other comparisons were sparse, partly due to high dropout rates, and the certainty of the evidence tended to be low or very low.\nProgression-free survival\nHigh-certainty evidence shows that CRT increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61); moderate-certainty evidence suggests that RT60 probably increases time to disease progression compared with supportive care only (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.46), and that BEV_RT probably increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 alone (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.78). Evidence for other treatment comparisons was of low- or very low-certainty.\nSevere adverse events\nModerate-certainty evidence suggests that TMZ probably increases the risk of grade 3+ thromboembolic events compared with RT60 (risk ratio (RR) 2.74, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.94; participants = 373; studies = 1) and also the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia. Moderate-certainty evidence also suggests that CRT probably increases the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, leucopenia and thrombocytopenia compared with hypofractionated RT alone. Adding BEV to CRT probably increases the risk of thromboembolism (RR 16.63, 95% CI 1.00 to 275.42; moderate-certainty evidence).\nEconomic evidence\nThere is a paucity of economic evidence regarding the management of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly. Only one economic evaluation on two short course radiotherapy regimen (25 Gy versus 40 Gy) was identified and its findings were considered unreliable.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor elderly people with glioblastoma who are self-caring, evidence suggests that CRT prolongs survival compared with RT and may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ alone. For those undergoing RT or TMZ therapy, there is probably little difference in QoL overall. Systemic anti-cancer treatments TMZ and BEV carry a higher risk of severe haematological and thromboembolic events and CRT is probably associated with a higher risk of these events. Current evidence provides little justification for using BEV in elderly patients outside a clinical trial setting. Whilst the novel TTF device appears promising, evidence on QoL and tolerability is needed in an elderly population. QoL and economic assessments of CRT versus TMZ and RT are needed. More high-quality economic evaluations are needed, in which a broader scope of costs (both direct and indirect) and outcomes should be included.\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": "Glioblastoma is a fatal type of brain tumour. The standard treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma is to remove as much of the tumour as possible by operation, and then to give chemotherapy (an anti-cancer medicine called temozolomide (TMZ)) and radiotherapy. TMZ is usually given at the same time as radiotherapy (concomitant chemotherapy), and also for about six months after radiotherapy (adjuvant chemotherapy). Together, these treatments can be called chemoradiotherapy (CRT). However, not all people, particularly the elderly, are fit enough to receive CRT, which can have serious side-effects. In this review we evaluated evidence on different treatments that have been looked at in older people with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, to find out which treatments may help."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7655
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPotential benefits of rapamycin or rapalogs for treating people with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) have been shown. Currently everolimus (a rapalog) is only approved for TSC-associated renal angiomyolipoma and subependymal giant cell astrocytoma (SEGA), but not other manifestations of TSC. A systematic review needs to establish evidence for rapamycin or rapalogs for various manifestations in TSC. This is an updated review.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with TSC for decreasing tumour size and other manifestations and to assess the safety of rapamycin or rapalogs in relation to their adverse effects.\nSearch methods\nWe identified relevant studies from the Cochrane-Central-Register-of-Controlled-Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE and ongoing trials registries with no language restrictions. We searched conference proceedings and abstract books of conferences.\nDate of the last searches: 15 July 2022.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with TSC.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each study; a third review author verified the extracted data and risk of bias decisions. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nThe current update added seven RCTs, bringing the total number to 10 RCTs (with 1008 participants aged 3 months to 65 years; 484 males). All TSC diagnoses were by consensus criteria as a minimum. In parallel studies, 645 participants received active interventions and 340 placebo. Evidence is low-to-high certainty and study quality is mixed; mostly a low risk of bias across domains, but one study had a high risk of performance bias (lack of blinding) and three studies had a high risk of attrition bias. Manufacturers of the investigational products supported eight studies.\nSystemic administration\nSix studies (703 participants) administered everolimus (rapalog) orally. More participants in the intervention arm reduced renal angiomyolipoma size by 50% (risk ratio (RR) 24.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.51 to 173.41; P = 0.001; 2 studies, 162 participants, high-certainty evidence). In the intervention arm, more participants in the intervention arm reduced SEGA tumour size by 50% (RR 27.85, 95% CI 1.74 to 444.82; P = 0.02; 1 study; 117 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) ,and reported more skin responses (RR 5.78, 95% CI 2.30 to 14.52; P = 0.0002; 2 studies; 224 participants; high-certainty evidence). In one 18-week study (366 participants), the intervention led to 25% fewer seizures (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.09; P = 0.0001) or 50% fewer seizures (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.60; P = 0.0004); but there was no difference in numbers being seizure-free (RR 5.30, 95% CI 0.69 to 40.57; P = 0.11) (moderate-certainty evidence). One study (42 participants) showed no difference in neurocognitive, neuropsychiatry, behavioural, sensory and motor development (low-certainty evidence).\nTotal adverse events (AEs) did not differ between groups (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.22; P = 0.16; 5 studies; 680 participants; high-certainty evidence). However, the intervention group experienced more AEs resulting in withdrawal, interruption of treatment, or reduced dose (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.58 to 4.33; P = 0.0002; 4 studies; 633 participants; high-certainty evidence and also reported more severe AEs (RR 2.35, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.58; P = 0.05; 2 studies; 413 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nTopical (skin) administration\nFour studies (305 participants) administered rapamycin topically. More participants in the intervention arm showed a response to skin lesions (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.18; P < 0.00001; 2 studies; 187 participants; high-certainty evidence) and more participants in the placebo arm reported a deterioration of skin lesions (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.49; 1 study; 164 participants; high-certainty evidence). More participants in the intervention arm responded to facial angiofibroma at one to three months (RR 28.74, 95% CI 1.78 to 463.19; P = 0.02) and three to six months (RR 39.39, 95% CI 2.48 to 626.00; P = 0.009; low-certainty evidence). Similar results were noted for cephalic plaques at one to three months (RR 10.93, 95% CI 0.64 to 186.08; P = 0.10) and three to six months (RR 7.38, 95% CI 1.01 to 53.83; P = 0.05; low-certainty evidence). More participants on placebo showed a deterioration of skin lesions (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.49; P < 0.0001; 1 study; 164 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The intervention arm reported a higher general improvement score (MD -1.01, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.34; P < 0.0001), but no difference specifically in the adult subgroup (MD -0.75, 95% CI -1.58 to 0.08; P = 0.08; 1 study; 36 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants in the intervention arm reported higher satisfaction than with placebo (MD -0.92, 95% CI -1.79 to -0.05; P = 0.04; 1 study; 36 participants; low-certainty evidence), although again with no difference among adults (MD -0.25, 95% CI -1.52 to 1.02; P = 0.70; 1 study; 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). Groups did not differ in change in quality of life at six months (MD 0.30, 95% CI -1.01 to 1.61; P = 0.65; 1 study; 62 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nTreatment led to a higher risk of any AE compared to placebo (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.10, 2.67; P = 0.02; 3 studies; 277 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but no difference between groups in severe AEs (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.15; P = 0.73; 1 study; 179 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nOral everolimus reduces the size of SEGA and renal angiomyolipoma by 50%, reduces seizure frequency by 25% and 50% and implements beneficial effects on skin lesions with no difference in the total number of AEs compared to placebo; however, more participants in the treatment group required a dose reduction, interruption or withdrawal and marginally more experienced serious AEs compared to placebo.\nTopical rapamycin increases the response to skin lesions and facial angiofibroma, an improvement score, satisfaction and the risk of any AE, but not severe adverse events.\nWith caution regarding the risk of severe AEs, this review supports oral everolimus for renal angiomyolipoma, SEGA, seizure, and skin lesions, and topical rapamycin for facial angiofibroma.\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": "Oral everolimus (rapalog) increased the number of people who achieved a 50% reduction in the size of subependymal giant cell astrocytoma and renal angiomyolipoma, as well as 25% and 50% reduction in seizure frequency. Oral everolimus also showed benefit in terms of response to skin lesions. However, those who received the systemic treatment probably had a higher risk of experiencing any adverse events as compared to those who did not receive treatment. More people receiving the systemic treatment had severe adverse events and adverse events that cause them to withdraw from the trial, temporarily stop treatment or reduce their dose compared to people receiving placebo.\nTopical rapamycin increased the proportion of people who reported response to any skin lesions and probably facial angiofibroma. Absence of topical rapamycin increased the proportion of people who reported deterioration to any skin lesions. The topical rapamycin was also shown to increase improvement score and satisfaction. However, those who received the topical treatment probably had a higher risk of experiencing any adverse events, but not severe adverse events, compared to those who did not receive treatment."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7656
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOver 35 million people are estimated to be living with dementia in the world and the societal costs are very high. Case management is a widely used and strongly promoted complex intervention for organising and co-ordinating care at the level of the individual, with the aim of providing long-term care for people with dementia in the community as an alternative to early admission to a care home or hospital.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of case management approaches to home support for people with dementia, from the perspective of the different people involved (patients, carers, and staff) compared with other forms of treatment, including ‘treatment as usual’, standard community treatment and other non-case management interventions.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to 31 December 2013: ALOIS, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group,The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science (including Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Social Science Citation Index), Campbell Collaboration/SORO database and the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We updated this search in March 2014 but results have not yet been incorporated.\nSelection criteria\nWe include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of case management interventions for people with dementia living in the community and their carers. We screened interventions to ensure that they focused on planning and co-ordination of care.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as required by The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently extracted data and made 'Risk of bias' assessments using Cochrane criteria. For continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) between groups along with its confidence interval (95% CI). We applied a fixed- or random-effects model as appropriate. For binary or dichotomous data, we generated the corresponding odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. We assessed heterogeneity by the I² statistic.\nMain results\nWe include 13 RCTs involving 9615 participants with dementia in the review. Case management interventions in studies varied. We found low to moderate overall risk of bias; 69% of studies were at high risk for performance bias.\nThe case management group were significantly less likely to be institutionalised (admissions to residential or nursing homes) at six months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98, n = 5741, 6 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.02) and at 18 months (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.61, n = 363, 4 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.003). However, the effects at 10 - 12 months (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08, n = 5990, 9 RCTs, I² = 48%, P = 0.39) and 24 months (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.03, n = 201, 2 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.94) were uncertain. There was evidence from one trial of a reduction in the number of days per month in a residential home or hospital unit in the case management group at six months (MD -5.80, 95% CI -7.93 to -3.67, n = 88, 1 RCT, P < 0.0001) and at 12 months (MD -7.70, 95% CI -9.38 to -6.02, n = 88, 1 RCT, P < 0.0001). One trial reported the length of time until participants were institutionalised at 12 months and the effects were uncertain (hazard ratio (HR): 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.14, P = 0.14). There was no difference in the number of people admitted to hospital at six (4 RCTs, 439 participants), 12 (5 RCTs, 585 participants) and 18 months (5 RCTs, 613 participants). For mortality at 4 - 6, 12, 18 - 24 and 36 months, and for participants' or carers' quality of life at 4, 6, 12 and 18 months, there were no significant effects. There was some evidence of benefits in carer burden at six months (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.01, n = 4601, 4 RCTs, I² = 26%, P = 0.03) but the effects at 12 or 18 months were uncertain. Additionally, some evidence indicated case management was more effective at reducing behaviour disturbance at 18 months (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.07, n = 206, 2 RCTs I² = 0%, P = 0.01) but effects were uncertain at four (2 RCTs), six (4 RCTs) or 12 months (5 RCTs).\nThe case management group showed a small significant improvement in carer depression at 18 months (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.01, n = 2888, 3 RCTs, I² = 0%, P = 0.03). Conversely, the case management group showed greater improvement in carer well-being in a single study at six months (MD -2.20 CI CI -4.14 to -0.26, n = 65, 1 RCT, P = 0.03) but the effects were uncertain at 12 or 18 months. There was some evidence that case management reduced the total cost of services at 12 months (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.02, n = 5276, 2 RCTs, P = 0.01) and incurred lower dollar expenditure for the total three years (MD= -705.00, 95% CI -1170.31 to -239.69, n = 5170, 1 RCT, P = 0.003). Data on a number of outcomes consistently indicated that the intervention group received significantly more community services.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is some evidence that case management is beneficial at improving some outcomes at certain time points, both in the person with dementia and in their carer. However, there was considerable heterogeneity between the interventions, outcomes measured and time points across the 13 included RCTs. There was some evidence from good-quality studies to suggest that admissions to care homes and overall healthcare costs are reduced in the medium term; however, the results at longer points of follow-up were uncertain. There was not enough evidence to clearly assess whether case management could delay institutionalisation in care homes. There were uncertain results in patient depression, functional abilities and cognition. Further work should be undertaken to investigate what components of case management are associated with improvement in outcomes. Increased consistency in measures of outcome would support future meta-analysis.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key findings\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Some studies examined the benefit of case management in reducing admissions to residential or nursing homes (institutionalisation). We found benefits at six months and 18 months but not at 12 and 24 months. However, when only studies which were clearly focused upon delaying institutionalisation or prolonging the period of community care were included we found a reduction in institutionalisation at 12 months. Some studies examined the benefits of case management in terms of reduced hospital length of stay, and there was evidence to suggest that it might increase at six months. Some studies indicated that case management was more effective at reducing behaviour disturbance at 18 months, reducing carer burden and depression and improving carer well-being at six months and social support at 12 months. Case management increases the use of community services but there was some indication that overall healthcare costs may be reduced in the first year. Some studies reported that case management was no more effective than usual care in improving patient depression, functional abilities or cognition. There was not enough evidence to clearly assess whether case management could increase the length of time until people with dementia were admitted to care homes."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7657
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPain in the neonate is associated with acute behavioural and physiological changes. Cumulative pain is associated with morbidities, including adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. Studies have shown a reduction in changes in physiological parameters and pain score measurements following pre-emptive analgesic administration in neonates experiencing pain or stress. Non-pharmacological measures (such as holding, swaddling and breastfeeding) and pharmacological measures (such as acetaminophen, sucrose and opioids) have been used for analgesia. This is an update of a review first published in 2006 and updated in 2012.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of breastfeeding or supplemental breast milk in reducing procedural pain in neonates. The secondary objective was to conduct subgroup analyses based on the type of control intervention, gestational age and the amount of supplemental breast milk given.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and trial registries (ICTRP, ISRCTN and clinicaltrials.gov) in August 2022; searches were limited from 2011 forwards. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of breastfeeding or supplemental breast milk versus no treatment/other measures in neonates. We included both term (≥ 37 completed weeks postmenstrual age) and preterm infants (< 37 completed weeks' postmenstrual age) up to a maximum of 44 weeks' postmenstrual age. The study must have reported on either physiological markers of pain or validated pain scores.\nData collection and analysis\nWe assessed the methodological quality of the trials using the information provided in the studies and by personal communication with the authors. We extracted data on relevant outcomes, estimated the effect size and reported this as a mean difference (MD). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nOf the 66 included studies, 36 evaluated breastfeeding, 29 evaluated supplemental breast milk and one study compared them against each other. The procedures conducted in the studies were: heel lance (39), venipuncture (11), intramuscular vaccination (nine), eye examination for retinopathy of prematurity (four), suctioning (four) and adhesive tape removal as procedure (one). We noted marked heterogeneity in the control interventions and pain assessment measures amongst the studies. Since many studies included multiple arms with breastfeeding/supplemental breast milk as the main comparator, we were not able to synthesise all interventions together. Individual interventions are compared to breastfeeding/supplemental breast milk and reported. The numbers of studies/participants presented with the findings are not taken from pooled analyses (as is usual in Cochrane Reviews), but are the overall totals in each comparison.\nOverall, the included studies were at low risk of bias except for masking of intervention and outcome assessment, where nearly one-third of studies were at high risk of bias.\nBreastfeeding versus control\nBreastfeeding may reduce the increase in heart rate compared to holding by mother, skin-to-skin contact, bottle feeding mother's milk, moderate concentration of sucrose/glucose (20% to 33%) with skin-to-skin contact (low-certainty evidence, 8 studies, 784 participants).\nBreastfeeding likely reduces the duration of crying compared to no intervention, lying on table, rocking, heel warming, holding by mother, skin-to-skin contact, bottle feeding mother's milk and moderate concentration of glucose (moderate-certainty evidence, 16 studies, 1866 participants).\nBreastfeeding may reduce percentage time crying compared to holding by mother, skin-to-skin contact, bottle feeding mother's milk, moderate concentration sucrose and moderate concentration of sucrose with skin-to-skin contact (low-certainty evidence, 4 studies, 359 participants).\nBreastfeeding likely reduces the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) score compared to no intervention, holding by mother, heel warming, music, EMLA cream, moderate glucose concentration, swaddling, swaddling and holding (moderate-certainty evidence, 12 studies, 1432 participants).\nBreastfeeding may reduce the Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS) score compared to no intervention, holding, pacifier and moderate concentration of glucose (low-certainty evidence, 2 studies, 235 participants).\nBreastfeeding may reduce the Douleur Aigue Nouveau-né (DAN) score compared to positioning, holding or placebo (low-certainty evidence, 4 studies, 709 participants).\nIn the majority of the other comparisons there was little or no difference between the breastfeeding and control group in any of the outcome measures.\nSupplemental breast milk versus control\nSupplemental breast milk may reduce the increase in heart rate compared to water or no intervention (low-certainty evidence, 5 studies, 336 participants).\nSupplemental breast milk likely reduces the duration of crying compared to positioning, massage or placebo (moderate-certainty evidence, 11 studies, 1283 participants).\nSupplemental breast milk results in little or no difference in percentage time crying compared to placebo or glycine (low-certainty evidence, 1 study, 70 participants).\nSupplemental breast milk results in little or no difference in NIPS score compared to no intervention, pacifier, moderate concentration of sucrose, eye drops, gentle touch and verbal comfort, and breast milk odour and verbal comfort (low-certainty evidence, 3 studies, 291 participants).\nSupplemental breast milk may reduce NFCS score compared to glycine (overall low-certainty evidence, 1 study, 40 participants). DAN scores were lower when compared to massage and water; no different when compared to no intervention, EMLA and moderate concentration of sucrose; and higher when compared to rocking or pacifier (low-certainty evidence, 2 studies, 224 participants).\nDue to the high number of comparator interventions, other measures of pain were assessed in a very small number of studies in both comparisons, rendering the evidence of low certainty.\nThe majority of studies did not report on adverse events, considering the benign nature of the intervention. Those that reported on adverse events identified none in any participants.\nSubgroup analyses were not conducted due to the small number of studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-/low-certainty evidence suggests that breastfeeding or supplemental breast milk may reduce pain in neonates undergoing painful procedures compared to no intervention/positioning/holding or placebo or non-pharmacological interventions. Low-certainty evidence suggests that moderate concentration (20% to 33%) glucose/sucrose may lead to little or no difference in reducing pain compared to breastfeeding. The effectiveness of breast milk for painful procedures should be studied in the preterm population, as there are currently a limited number of studies that have assessed its effectiveness in this population.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What are the limitations of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We are moderately confident that breastfeeding reduces pain as assessed by heart rate, cry duration or validated pain scale compared to no intervention. Supplemental breast milk for painful procedures may reduce pain when compared to no intervention or placebo.\nDue to the high number of comparator groups, other measures of pain were assessed in a very small number of studies. The majority of the studies did not report on any unwanted or harmful effects of treatment. Those that did this identified no unwanted or harmful effects of treatment in any infants."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7658
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDecision aids are interventions that support patients by making their decisions explicit, providing information about options and associated benefits/harms, and helping clarify congruence between decisions and personal values.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of decision aids in people facing treatment or screening decisions.\nSearch methods\nUpdated search (2012 to April 2015) in CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; and grey literature; includes CINAHL to September 2008.\nSelection criteria\nWe included published randomized controlled trials comparing decision aids to usual care and/or alternative interventions. For this update, we excluded studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made and the decision-making process.\nSecondary outcomes were behavioural, health, and health system effects.\nWe pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of studies that used the patient decision aid to prepare for the consultation and of those that used it in the consultation. We used GRADE to assess the strength of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 105 studies involving 31,043 participants. This update added 18 studies and removed 28 previously included studies comparing detailed versus simple decision aids. During the 'Risk of bias' assessment, we rated two items (selective reporting and blinding of participants/personnel) as mostly unclear due to inadequate reporting. Twelve of 105 studies were at high risk of bias.\nWith regard to the attributes of the choice made, decision aids increased participants' knowledge (MD 13.27/100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.32 to 15.23; 52 studies; N = 13,316; high-quality evidence), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 2.10; 95% CI 1.66 to 2.66; 17 studies; N = 5096; moderate-quality evidence), and congruency between informed values and care choices (RR 2.06; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.91; 10 studies; N = 4626; low-quality evidence) compared to usual care.\nRegarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, decision aids decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD −9.28/100; 95% CI −12.20 to −6.36; 27 studies; N = 5707; high-quality evidence), indecision about personal values (MD −8.81/100; 95% CI −11.99 to −5.63; 23 studies; N = 5068; high-quality evidence), and the proportion of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.83; 16 studies; N = 3180; moderate-quality evidence).\nDecision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication. Moreover, those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and/or the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.\nDecision aids also reduced the number of people choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; 18 studies; N = 3844), but this reduction reached statistical significance only after removing the study on prophylactic mastectomy for breast cancer gene carriers (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; 17 studies; N = 3108). Compared to usual care, decision aids reduced the number of people choosing prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; 10 studies; N = 3996) and increased those choosing to start new medications for diabetes (RR 1.65; 95% CI 1.06 to 2.56; 4 studies; N = 447). For other testing and screening choices, mostly there were no differences between decision aids and usual care.\nThe median effect of decision aids on length of consultation was 2.6 minutes longer (24 versus 21; 7.5% increase). The costs of the decision aid group were lower in two studies and similar to usual care in four studies. People receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from those receiving usual care in terms of anxiety, general health outcomes, and condition-specific health outcomes. Studies did not report adverse events associated with the use of decision aids.\nIn subgroup analysis, we compared results for decision aids used in preparation for the consultation versus during the consultation, finding similar improvements in pooled analysis for knowledge and accurate risk perception. For other outcomes, we could not conduct formal subgroup analyses because there were too few studies in each subgroup.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to usual care across a wide variety of decision contexts, people exposed to decision aids feel more knowledgeable, better informed, and clearer about their values, and they probably have a more active role in decision making and more accurate risk perceptions. There is growing evidence that decision aids may improve values-congruent choices. There are no adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. New for this updated is evidence indicating improved knowledge and accurate risk perceptions when decision aids are used either within or in preparation for the consultation. Further research is needed on the effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, and use with lower literacy populations.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results with quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "When people use decision aids, they improve their knowledge of the options (high-quality evidence) and feel better informed and more clear about what matters most to them (high-quality evidence). They probably have more accurate expectations of benefits and harms of options (moderate-quality evidence) and probably participate more in decision making (moderate-quality evidence). People who use decision aids may achieve decisions that are consistent with their informed values (evidence is not as strong; more research could change results). People and their clinicians were more likely to talk about the decision when using a decision aid. Decision aids have a variable effect on the option chosen, depending on the choice being considered. Decision aids do not worsen health outcomes, and people using them are not less satisfied. More research is needed to assess if people continue with the option they chose and also to assess what impact decision aids have on healthcare systems."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7659
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is the second substantive update of this review. It was originally published in 1998 and was previously updated in 2009. Elevated blood pressure (known as 'hypertension') increases with age - most rapidly over age 60. Systolic hypertension is more strongly associated with cardiovascular disease than is diastolic hypertension, and it occurs more commonly in older people. It is important to know the benefits and harms of antihypertensive treatment for hypertension in this age group, as well as separately for people 60 to 79 years old and people 80 years or older.\nObjectives\nPrimary objective\n• To quantify the effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment on all-cause mortality in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertension\nSecondary objectives\n• To quantify the effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment on cardiovascular-specific morbidity and mortality in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertension\n• To quantify the rate of withdrawal due to adverse effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment in people 60 years and older with mild to moderate systolic or diastolic hypertension\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to 24 November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials of at least one year's duration comparing antihypertensive drug therapy versus placebo or no treatment and providing morbidity and mortality data for adult patients (≥ 60 years old) with hypertension defined as blood pressure greater than 140/90 mmHg.\nData collection and analysis\nOutcomes assessed were all-cause mortality; cardiovascular morbidity and mortality; cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality; coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality; and withdrawal due to adverse effects. We modified the definition of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity to exclude transient ischaemic attacks when possible.\nMain results\nThis update includes one additional trial (MRC-TMH 1985). Sixteen trials (N = 26,795) in healthy ambulatory adults 60 years or older (mean age 73.4 years) from western industrialised countries with moderate to severe systolic and/or diastolic hypertension (average 182/95 mmHg) met the inclusion criteria. Most of these trials evaluated first-line thiazide diuretic therapy for a mean treatment duration of 3.8 years.\nAntihypertensive drug treatment reduced all-cause mortality (high-certainty evidence; 11% with control vs 10.0% with treatment; risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.97; cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (moderate-certainty evidence; 13.6% with control vs 9.8% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.77; cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity (moderate-certainty evidence; 5.2% with control vs 3.4% with treatment; RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.74; and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity (moderate-certainty evidence; 4.8% with control vs 3.7% with treatment; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.88. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased with treatment (low-certainty evidence; 5.4% with control vs 15.7% with treatment; RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.56 to 3.30. In the three trials restricted to persons with isolated systolic hypertension, reported benefits were similar.\nThis comprehensive systematic review provides additional evidence that the reduction in mortality observed was due mostly to reduction in the 60- to 79-year-old patient subgroup (high-certainty evidence; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95). Although cardiovascular mortality and morbidity was significantly reduced in both subgroups 60 to 79 years old (moderate-certainty evidence; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.77) and 80 years or older (moderate-certainty evidence; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87), the magnitude of absolute risk reduction was probably higher among 60- to 79-year-old patients (3.8% vs 2.9%). The reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity was primarily due to a reduction in cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTreating healthy adults 60 years or older with moderate to severe systolic and/or diastolic hypertension with antihypertensive drug therapy reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, cerebrovascular mortality and morbidity, and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity. Most evidence of benefit pertains to a primary prevention population using a thiazide as first-line treatment.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Conclusions\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Blood pressure-lowering drug treatment for healthy persons (60 years or older) with raised blood pressure reduces death, heart attacks, and strokes."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7660
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStroke is a major health issue and cause of long-term disability and has a major emotional and socioeconomic impact. There is a need to explore options for long-term sustainable interventions that support stroke survivors to engage in meaningful activities to address life challenges after stroke. Rehabilitation focuses on recovery of function and cognition to the maximum level achievable, and may include a wide range of complementary strategies including yoga.\nYoga is a mind-body practice that originated in India, and which has become increasingly widespread in the Western world. Recent evidence highlights the positive effects of yoga for people with a range of physical and psychological health conditions. A recent non-Cochrane systematic review concluded that yoga can be used as self-administered practice in stroke rehabilitation.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of yoga, as a stroke rehabilitation intervention, on recovery of function and quality of life (QoL).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched July 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (last searched July 2017), MEDLINE (to July 2017), Embase (to July 2017), CINAHL (to July 2017), AMED (to July 2017), PsycINFO (to July 2017), LILACS (to July 2017), SciELO (to July 2017), IndMED (to July 2017), OTseeker (to July 2017) and PEDro (to July 2017). We also searched four trials registers, and one conference abstracts database. We screened reference lists of relevant publications and contacted authors for additional information.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared yoga with a waiting-list control or no intervention control in stroke survivors.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We performed all analyses using Review Manager (RevMan). One review author entered the data into RevMan; another checked the entries. We discussed disagreements with a third review author until consensus was reached. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Where we considered studies to be sufficiently similar, we conducted a meta-analysis by pooling the appropriate data. For outcomes for which it was inappropriate or impossible to pool quantitatively, we conducted a descriptive analysis and provided a narrative summary.\nMain results\nWe included two RCTs involving 72 participants. Sixty-nine participants were included in one meta-analysis (balance). Both trials assessed QoL, along with secondary outcomes measures relating to movement and psychological outcomes; one also measured disability.\nIn one study the Stroke Impact Scale was used to measure QoL across six domains, at baseline and post-intervention. The effect of yoga on five domains (physical, emotion, communication, social participation, stroke recovery) was not significant; however, the effect of yoga on the memory domain was significant (mean difference (MD) 15.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 29.31, P = 0.03), the evidence for this finding was very low grade. In the second study, QoL was assessed using the Stroke-Specifc QoL Scale; no significant effect was found.\nSecondary outcomes included movement, strength and endurance, and psychological variables, pain, and disability.\nBalance was measured in both studies using the Berg Balance Scale; the effect of intervention was not significant (MD 2.38, 95% CI -1.41 to 6.17, P = 0.22). Sensititivy analysis did not alter the direction of effect. One study measured balance self-efficacy, using the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (MD 10.60, 95% CI -7.08,= to 28.28, P = 0.24); the effect of intervention was not significant; the evidence for this finding was very low grade.\nOne study measured gait using the Comfortable Speed Gait Test (MD 1.32, 95% CI -1.35 to 3.99, P = 0.33), and motor function using the Motor Assessment Scale (MD -4.00, 95% CI -12.42 to 4.42, P = 0.35); no significant effect was found based on very low-grade evidence.\nOne study measured disability using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) but reported only whether participants were independent or dependent. No significant effect was found: (odds ratio (OR) 2.08, 95% CI 0.50 to 8.60, P = 0.31); the evidence for this finding was very low grade.\nAnxiety and depression were measured in one study. Three measures were used: the Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GCDS15), and two forms of State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI, Form Y) to measure state anxiety (i.e. anxiety experienced in response to stressful situations) and trait anxiety (i.e. anxiety associated with chronic psychological disorders). No significant effect was found for depression (GDS15, MD -2.10, 95% CI -4.70 to 0.50, P = 0.11) or for trait anxiety (STAI-Y2, MD -6.70, 95% CI -15.35 to 1.95, P = 0.13), based on very low-grade evidence. However, a significant effect was found for state anxiety: STAI-Y1 (MD -8.40, 95% CI -16.74 to -0.06, P = 0.05); the evidence for this finding was very low grade.\nNo adverse events were reported.\nQuality of the evidence\nWe assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. Overall, the quality of the evidence was very low, due to the small number of trials included in the review both of which were judged to be at high risk of bias, particularly in relation to incompleteness of data and selective reporting, and especially regarding the representative nature of the sample in one study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nYoga has the potential for being included as part of patient-centred stroke rehabilitation. However, this review has identified insufficient information to confirm or refute the effectiveness or safety of yoga as a stroke rehabilitation treatment. Further large-scale methodologically robust trials are required to establish the effectiveness of yoga as a stroke rehabilitation 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 two research studies that had assessed yoga for stroke survivors. Seventy-two people took part in the two studies. One study was in the USA and one was in Australia. On average, the stroke survivors were between 60 and 63 years old and it had been between four years three months and nine years since they had had a stroke. In the American study, yoga classes were held twice a week for eight weeks. In the Australian study, yoga classes were held once a week for 10 weeks. Both studies encouraged people to practice yoga at home, in their own time. Both studies used waiting-list control groups. This means that people in the control group could go to yoga classes at the end of the study."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7661
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPostpartum constipation, with symptoms, such as pain or discomfort, straining, and hard stool, is a common condition affecting mothers. Haemorrhoids, pain at the episiotomy site, effects of pregnancy hormones, and haematinics used in pregnancy can increase the risk of postpartum constipation. Eating a high-fibre diet and increasing fluid intake are usually encouraged. Although laxatives are commonly used in relieving constipation, the effectiveness and safety of available interventions for preventing postpartum constipation should be ascertained. This is an update of a review first published in 2015.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of interventions for preventing postpartum constipation.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, and two trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 October 2019), and screened reference lists of retrieved trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any intervention for preventing postpartum constipation versus another intervention, placebo, or no intervention in postpartum women. Interventions could include pharmacological (e.g. laxatives) and non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. acupuncture, educational and behavioural interventions). Quasi-randomised trials and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion; none were identified. Trials using a cross-over design were not eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the results of the search to select potentially relevant trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence, using the GRADE approach. We did not pool results in a meta-analysis, but reported them per study.\nMain results\nWe included five trials (1208 postpartum mothers); three RCTs and two quasi-RCTs. Four trials compared a laxative with placebo; one compared a laxative plus a bulking agent versus the same laxative alone, in women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears. Trials were poorly reported, and four of the five trials were published over 40 years ago. We judged the risk of bias to be unclear for most domains. Overall, we found a high risk of selection and attrition bias.\nLaxative versus placebo\nWe included four trials in this comparison. Two of the trials examined the effects of laxatives that are no longer used; one has been found to have carcinogenic properties (Danthron), and the other is not recommended for lactating women (Bisoxatin acetate); therefore, we did not include their results in our main findings.\nNone of the trials included in this comparison assessed our primary outcomes: pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation, or quality of life; or many of our secondary outcomes.\nA laxative (senna) may increase the number of women having their first bowel movement within 24 hours after delivery (risk ratio (RR) 2.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.24 to 3.75; 1 trial, 471 women; low-certainty evidence); may have little or no effect on the number of women having their first bowel movement on day one after delivery (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.22; 1 trial, 471 women; very low-certainty evidence); may reduce the number of women having their first bowel movement on day two (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.45; 1 trial, 471 women; low-certainty evidence); and day three (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.89; 1 trial, 471 women; low-certainty evidence); and may have little or no effect on the number of women having their first bowel movement on day four after delivery (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.87; 1 trial, 471 women; very low-certainty evidence), but some of the evidence is very uncertain.\nAdverse effects were poorly reported. Low-certainty evidence suggests that the laxative (senna) may increase the number of women experiencing abdominal cramps (RR 4.23, 95% CI 1.75 to 10.19; 1 trial, 471 women). Very low-certainty evidence suggests that laxatives taken by the mother may have little or no effect on loose stools in the baby (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.41; 1 trial, 281 babies); or diarrhoea (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.23 to 26.82; 1 trial, 281 babies).\nLaxative plus bulking agent versus laxative only\nVery low-certainty evidence from one trial (147 women) suggests no evidence of a difference between these two groups of women who underwent surgical repair of third degree perineal tears; only median and range data were reported. The trial also reported no evidence of a difference in the incidence of postpartum constipation (data not reported), but did not report on quality of life. Time to first bowel movement was reported as a median (range); very low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference between the two groups. A laxative plus bulking agent may increase the number of women having any episode of faecal incontinence during the first 10 days postpartum (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.23; 1 trial, 147 women; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report on adverse effects of the intervention on babies, or many of our secondary outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to make general conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of laxatives for preventing postpartum constipation. The evidence in this review was assessed as low to very low-certainty evidence, with downgrading decisions based on limitations in study design, indirectness and imprecision.\nWe did not identify any trials assessing educational or behavioural interventions. We identified four trials that examined laxatives versus placebo, and one that examined laxatives versus laxatives plus stool bulking agents.\nFurther, rigorous trials are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of laxatives during the postpartum period for preventing constipation. Trials should assess educational and behavioural interventions, and positions that enhance defecation. They should report on the primary outcomes from this review: pain or straining on defecation, incidence of postpartum constipation, quality of life, time to first bowel movement after delivery, and adverse effects caused by the intervention, such as: nausea or vomiting, pain, and flatus.\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 not enough evidence from randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness and safety of laxatives during the early postpartum period to make general conclusions about their use to prevent constipation.\nWe did not identify any trials assessing educational or behavioural interventions, such as a high-fibre diet and exercise. We need large, high-quality trials on this topic, specifically on non-medical interventions to prevent postpartum constipation, such as advice on diet and physical activity."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7662
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPost-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a long-term complication of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) that is characterised by chronic pain, swelling, and skin changes in the affected limb. One of every three people with DVT will develop post-thrombotic complications within five years. Several non-pharmaceutical measures are used for prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome during the acute phase of DVT. These include elevation of the legs and compression therapy. Clinicians and guidelines differ in their assessment of the utility of compression therapy for treatment of DVT. This is an update of a review first published in 2003.\nObjectives\nTo determine relative effectiveness and rate of complications when compression therapy is used in people with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) for prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS).\nSearch methods\nFor this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (20 March 2017) and CENTRAL (2017, Issue 2). The CIS also searched trial registries for details of ongoing or unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of compression therapy, such as bandaging and elastic stockings, in people with clinically confirmed DVT. The primary outcome was the occurrence of PTS.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors (DK and EvL) identified and assessed titles and abstracts for relevance, and a third review author (DA) verified this assessment independently. Review authors imposed no restrictions on date or language of publications. Three review authors (DA, DK, EvL) used data extraction sheets to independently extract study data. We resolved disagreements by discussion.\nMain results\nWe identified 10 RCTs with a total of 2361 participants that evaluated compression therapy. The overall methodological quality of these trials was low. We used only five studies in meta-analysis owing to differences in intervention types and lack of data. Three studies compared elastic compression stockings (pressure of 30 to 40 mmHg at the ankle) versus no intervention. Two studies compared elastic compression stockings (pressure 20 to 40 mmHg) versus placebo stockings. Overall, use of elastic compression stockings led to a clinically significant reduction in the incidence of PTS (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.01; P = 0.05; 1393 participants; 5 studies; low-quality evidence); no reduction in the incidence of severe PTS (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.15; P = 0.21; 1224 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence); and no clear difference in DVT recurrence (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.28; 1212 participants; 4 studies; P = 0.69; low-quality evidence). We did not pool data on the incidence of pulmonary embolism because this information was poorly reported, but we observed no differences between groups included in individual studies (low-quality evidence).\nTwo studies evaluated effects of compression in the acute phase versus no compression treatment and found no differences in the incidence of PTS (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.16; P = 0.2; 101 participants). One study reported that thigh-length stockings did not provide better protection against development of PTS than knee-length stockings (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.28; P = 0.6; 267 participants). Another trial reported that wearing compression stockings for two years seemed to be superior to wearing them for one year in terms of PTS incidence.\nTwo of the 10 included studies described patient satisfaction and quality of life (moderate-quality evidence), using different measurement systems. The first study showed significant improvement in well-being and DVT-related quality of life with compression treatment (P < 0.05) compared with bed rest, and the second study showed no differences in quality of life scores between compression and placebo groups. Four studies poorly reported side effects (low-quality evidence) that included itching, erythema, and other forms of allergic reaction and described no serious adverse events. Compliance with wearing of compression stockings was generally high but varied across studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-quality evidence suggests that elastic compression stockings may reduce the occurrence of PTS after DVT. We downgraded the quality of evidence owing to considerable heterogeneity between studies and lack of or unclear risk of blinding due to clinical assessment scores. No serious adverse effects occurred in these studies. Large randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings because of current lack of high-quality evidence and considerable heterogeneity.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics and key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We identified 10 randomised controlled trials with a total of 2361 participants that evaluated compression therapy (current until March 2017). We combined five trials to assess our main outcome - PTS. We found that people with DVT who wear elastic compression stockings are less likely to develop PTS, and that compression did not lead to reduced incidence of severe PTS. We found no clear differences in occurrence of pulmonary embolism (blockage of the artery in the lung) nor in reports of recurrent DVT. Compression in the acute phase of DVT compared with \"no compression\" treatment did not significantly lower PTS incidence. Thigh-length stockings did not provide better protection against development of PTS than knee-length stockings. One trial reported that wearing compression stockings for two years seemed to be superior to wearing them for one year in terms of PTS incidence. Compression treatment did not seem to improve quality of life, except during the first nine days after DVT, but we could draw no real conclusions regarding this outcome. Side effects included itching, erythema, and other forms of allergic reaction. The study investigators reported no serious adverse events and indicated that compliance with use of compression stockings was generally high but varied across studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7663
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDiabetic retinopathy is one of the major causes of blindness and the number of cases has risen in recent years. Herbal medicine has been used to treat diabetes and its complications including diabetic retinopathy for thousands of years around the world. However, common practice is not always evidence-based. Evidence is needed to help people with diabetic retinopathy or doctors to make judicious judgements about using herbal medicine as treatment.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and harm of single herbal medicine for diabetic retinopathy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register, MEDLINE, Embase, OpenGrey, the ISRCTN registry, ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 12 June 2018. We also searched the following Chinese databases in June 2013: Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM), Traditional Chinese Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (TCMLARS), Wanfang China Dissertation Database (CDDB), Wanfang China Conference Paper Database (CCPD) and the Index to Chinese Periodical Literature.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that investigated the effects of any single herb (or extracts from a single herb) as a treatment for people with diabetic retinopathy. We considered the following comparators: placebo, no treatment, non-herbal (conventional) medicine or surgical treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the studies. Our prespecified outcomes were: progression of diabetic retinopathy, visual acuity, microaneurysms and haemorrhages in the retina, blood glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (%) and adverse effects. We performed meta-analyses using risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies involving 754 participants, of which nine were conducted in China and one in Poland. In all studies, participants in both groups received conventional treatment for diabetic retinopathy which included maintaining blood glucose and lipids using medicines and keeping a stable diabetic diet. In three studies, the comparator group also received an additional potentially active comparator in the form of a vasoprotective drug. The single herbs or extracts included Ruscus extract tablet, Sanqi Tongshu capsule, tetramethylpyrazine injection, Xueshuantong injection, Puerarin injection and Xuesaitong injection. The Sanqi Tongshu capsule, Xueshuantong injection and Xuesaitong injection were all made from the extract of Radix Notoginseng (San qi) and the main ingredient was sanchinoside. The risk of bias was high in all included studies mainly due to lack of masking (blinding). None of the studies reported the primary outcome of this review, progression of retinopathy.\nCombined analysis of herbal interventions suggested that people who took these herbs in combination with conventional treatment may have been more likely to gain 2 or more lines of visual acuity compared to people who did not take these herbs when compared to conventional intervention alone at the end of treatment (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.48; 5 trials, 541 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses based on the different single herbs found no evidence for different effects of different herbs, but the power of this analysis was low. One study reported Sanqi Tongshu capsule might be associated with a greater reduction in microaneurysms and haemorrhages in the retina (very low-certainty evidence). The pooled analysis of two studies on tetramethylpyrazine or Xueshuantong injection showed such herbs may have had little effect on lowering HbA1c (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.58; 215 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nThere was very low-certainty evidence on adverse events. Two studies reported minor adverse events such as uncomfortable stomach, urticaria, dizziness and headache. There was no report of observation on adverse events in the other studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nNo conclusions could be drawn about the effect of any single herb or herbal extract on diabetic retinopathy from the current available evidence. It was difficult to exclude the placebo effect as a possible explanation for observed differences due to the lack of placebo control in the included studies. Further adequately designed trials are needed to establish the evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up-to-date is this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The Cochrane researchers searched for studies that had been published up to June 2018."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7665
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDepression is recognised as a major public health problem that has a substantial impact on individuals and on society. People with depression may consider using complementary therapies such as acupuncture, and an increasing body of research has been undertaken to assess the effectiveness of acupuncture for treatment of individuals with depression. This is the second update of this review.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effectiveness and adverse effects of acupuncture for treatment of individuals with depression.\nTo determine:\n• Whether acupuncture is more effective than treatment as usual/no treatment/wait list control for treating and improving quality of life for individuals with depression.\n• Whether acupuncture is more effective than control acupuncture for treating and improving quality of life for individuals with depression.\n• Whether acupuncture is more effective than pharmacological therapies for treating and improving quality of life for individuals with depression.\n• Whether acupuncture plus pharmacological therapy is more effective than pharmacological therapy alone for treating and improving quality of life for individuals with depression.\n• Whether acupuncture is more effective than psychological therapies for treating and improving quality of life for individuals with depression.\n• Adverse effects of acupuncture compared with treatment as usual/no treatment/wait list control, control acupuncture, pharmacological therapies, and psychological therapies for treatment of individuals with depression.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases to June 2016: Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group Controlled Trials Register (CCMD-CTR), Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), DBPIA (Korean article database website), Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Research Information Service System (RISS), Korea Med, Korean Medical Database (KM base), and Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS), as well as several Korean medical journals.\nSelection criteria\nReview criteria called for inclusion of all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing acupuncture versus control acupuncture, no treatment, medication, other structured psychotherapies (cognitive-behavioural therapy, psychotherapy, or counselling), or standard care. Modes of treatment included acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, and laser acupuncture. Participants included adult men and women with depression diagnosed by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC), International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD), or Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders Third Edition Revised (CCMD-3-R). If necessary, we used trial authors' definitions of depressive disorder.\nData collection and analysis\nWe performed meta-analyses using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Primary outcomes were reduction in the severity of depression, measured by self-rating scales or by clinician-rated scales, and improvement in depression, defined as remission versus no remission. We assessed evidence quality using the GRADE method.\nMain results\nThis review is an update of previous versions and includes 64 studies (7104 participants). Most studies were at high risk of performance bias, at high or unclear risk of detection bias, and at low or unclear risk of selection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias.\nAcupuncture versus no treatment/wait list/treatment as usual\nWe found low-quality evidence suggesting that acupuncture (manual and electro-) may moderately reduce the severity of depression by end of treatment (SMD -0.66, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.25, five trials, 488 participants). It is unclear whether data show differences between groups in the risk of adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.24, one trial, 302 participants; low-quality evidence).\nAcupuncture versus control acupuncture (invasive, non-invasive sham controls)\nAcupuncture may be associated with a small reduction in the severity of depression of 1.69 points on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) by end of treatment (95% CI -3.33 to -0.05, 14 trials, 841 participants; low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether data show differences between groups in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.86, five trials, 300 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\nAcupuncture versus medication\nWe found very low-quality evidence suggesting that acupuncture may confer small benefit in reducing the severity of depression by end of treatment (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.05, 31 trials, 3127 participants). Studies show substantial variation resulting from use of different classes of medications and different modes of acupuncture stimulation. Very low-quality evidence suggests lower ratings of adverse events following acupuncture compared with medication alone, as measured by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (mean difference (MD) -4.32, 95% CI -7.41 to -1.23, three trials, 481 participants).\nAcupuncture plus medication versus medication alone\nWe found very low-quality evidence suggesting that acupuncture is highly beneficial in reducing the severity of depression by end of treatment (SMD -1.15, 95% CI -1.63 to -0.66, 11 trials, 775 participants). Studies show substantial variation resulting from use of different modes of acupuncture stimulation. It is unclear whether differences in adverse events are associated with different modes of acupuncture (SMD -1.32, 95% CI -2.86 to 0.23, three trials, 200 participants; very low-quality evidence).\nAcupuncture versus psychological therapy\nIt is unclear whether data show differences between acupuncture and psychological therapy in the severity of depression by end of treatment (SMD -0.5, 95% CI -1.33 to 0.33, two trials, 497 participants; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence suggests no differences between groups in rates of adverse events (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.33, one trial, 452 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe reduction in severity of depression was less when acupuncture was compared with control acupuncture than when acupuncture was compared with no treatment control, although in both cases, results were rated as providing low-quality evidence. The reduction in severity of depression with acupuncture given alone or in conjunction with medication versus medication alone is uncertain owing to the very low quality of evidence. The effect of acupuncture compared with psychological therapy is unclear. The risk of adverse events with acupuncture is also unclear, as most trials did not report adverse events adequately. Few studies included follow-up periods or assessed important outcomes such as quality of life. High-quality randomised controlled trials are urgently needed to examine the clinical efficacy and acceptability of acupuncture, as well as its effectiveness, compared with acupuncture controls, medication, or psychological therapies.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What questions does this review aim to answer?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review, which is an update of a previous Cochrane review (published in 2010), aims to answer the following questions.\n• Is acupuncture better than no treatment or usual care?\n• Is acupuncture better than control acupuncture (a treatment that looks similar to acupuncture)?\n• Is acupuncture better than pharmacological therapies such as antidepressant medication?\n• Is acupuncture combined with antidepressant medication better than antidepressant medication alone?\n• Is acupuncture better than psychological therapies?\n• Is acupuncture safer than other types of treatment for depression?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7666
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) show considerable variation in symptoms, limitations, and well-being; this often complicates medical care. A multi-disciplinary and multi-component programme that addresses different elements of care could improve quality of life (QoL) and exercise tolerance, while reducing the number of exacerbations.\nObjectives\nTo compare the effectiveness of integrated disease management (IDM) programmes versus usual care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in terms of health-related quality of life (QoL), exercise tolerance, and exacerbation-related outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for potentially eligible studies. Searches were current as of September 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IDM programmes for COPD versus usual care were included. Interventions consisted of multi-disciplinary (two or more healthcare providers) and multi-treatment (two or more components) IDM programmes of at least three months' duration.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. If required, we contacted study authors to request additional data. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects modelling. We carried out sensitivity analyses for the quality of included studies and performed subgroup analyses based on setting, study design, dominant intervention components, and region.\nMain results\nAlong with 26 studies included in the 2013 Cochrane Review, we added 26 studies for this update, resulting in 52 studies involving 21,086 participants for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Follow-up periods ranged between 3 and 48 months and were classified as short-term (up to 6 months), medium-term (6 to 15 months), and long-term (longer than 15 months) follow-up. Studies were conducted in 19 different countries. The mean age of included participants was 67 years, and 66% were male. Participants were treated in all types of healthcare settings, including primary (n =15), secondary (n = 22), and tertiary care (n = 5), and combined primary and secondary care (n = 10). Overall, the level of certainty of evidence was moderate to high.\nWe found that IDM probably improves health-related QoL as measured by St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at medium-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -3.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.16 to -1.63; 18 RCTs, 4321 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A comparable effect was observed at short-term follow-up (MD -3.78, 95% CI -6.29 to -1.28; 16 RCTs, 1788 participants). However, the common effect did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of 4 points. There was no significant difference between IDM and control for long-term follow-up and for generic QoL.\nIDM probably also leads to a large improvement in maximum and functional exercise capacity, as measured by six-minute walking distance (6MWD), at medium-term follow-up (MD 44.69, 95% CI 24.01 to 65.37; 13 studies, 2071 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect exceeded the MCID of 35 metres and was even greater at short-term (MD 52.26, 95% CI 32.39 to 72.74; 17 RCTs, 1390 participants) and long-term (MD 48.83, 95% CI 16.37 to 80.49; 6 RCTs, 7288 participants) follow-up.\nThe number of participants with respiratory-related admissions was reduced from 324 per 1000 participants in the control group to 235 per 1000 participants in the IDM group (odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.81; 15 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 4207 participants; high-certainty evidence). Likewise, IDM probably results in a reduction in emergency department (ED) visits (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.50 to 0.93; 9 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 8791 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), a slight reduction in all-cause hospital admissions (OR 0.75, 95%CI 0.57 to 0.98; 10 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 9030 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and fewer hospital days per person admitted (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.98 to -0.56; 14 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 3563 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nStatistically significant improvement was noted on the Medical Research Council (MRC) Dyspnoea Scale at short- and medium-term follow-up but not at long-term follow-up. No differences between groups were reported for mortality, courses of antibiotics/prednisolone, dyspnoea, and depression and anxiety scores. Subgroup analysis of dominant intervention components and regions of study suggested context- and intervention-specific effects. However, some subgroup analyses were marked by considerable heterogeneity or included few studies. These results should therefore be interpreted with caution.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review shows that IDM probably results in improvement in disease-specific QoL, exercise capacity, hospital admissions, and hospital days per person. Future research should evaluate which combination of IDM components and which intervention duration are most effective for IDM programmes, and should consider contextual determinants of implementation and treatment effect, including process-related outcomes, long-term follow-up, and cost-effectiveness analyses.\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": "Overall, the certainty of our evidence was moderate to high but sometimes with large differences between studies.\nThis plain language summary is up-to-date as of February 2021."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7667
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFeeding practices around the time of packed red blood cell transfusion have been implicated in the subsequent development of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants. Specifically, it has been suggested that withholding feeds around the time of transfusion may reduce the risk of subsequent NEC. It is important to determine if withholding feeds around transfusion reduces the risk of subsequent NEC and associated mortality.\nObjectives\n• To assess the benefits and risks of stopping compared to continuing feed management before, during, and after blood transfusion in preterm infants\n• To assess the effects of stopping versus continuing feeds in the following subgroups of infants: infants of different gestations; infants with symptomatic and asymptomatic anaemia; infants who received different feeding schedules, types of feed, and methods of feed delivery; infants who were transfused with different blood products, at different blood volumes, via different routes of delivery; and those who received blood transfusion with and without co-interventions such as use of diuretics\n• To determine the effectiveness and safety of stopping feeds around the time of a blood transfusion in reducing the risk of subsequent necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 11), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1966 to 14 November 2018); Embase (1980 to 14 November 2018); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 14 November 2018). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared stopping feeds versus continuing feeds around the time of blood transfusion in preterm infants.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted data from the included studies.\nMain results\nThe search revealed seven studies that assessed effects of stopping feeds during blood transfusion. However, only one RCT involving 22 preterm infants was eligible for inclusion in the review. This RCT had low risk of selection bias but high risk of performance bias, as care personnel were not blinded to the study allocation. The primary objective of this trial was to investigate changes in mesenteric blood flow, and no cases of NEC were reported in any of the infants included in the trial. We were unable to draw any conclusions from this single study. The overall GRADE rating for quality of evidence was very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nRandomised controlled trial evidence is insufficient to show whether stopping feeds has an effect on the incidence of subsequent NEC or death. Large, adequately powered RCTs are needed to address this issue.\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": "NEC is a serious inflammatory gut disease that is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality in preterm babies. It is well known that certain feeding practices have an impact on the chance of a preterm baby developing NEC, and evidence suggests that packed red cell transfusions, which are often required during a preterm baby’s intensive care admission, may have a role in the development of this disease. The effects of feeding a baby during a red cell transfusion and subsequent development of NEC are currently unclear, and significant practice variation exists."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7668
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAlthough combination formulas containing antihistamines, decongestants, and/or analgesics are sold over-the-counter in large quantities for the common cold, the evidence for their effectiveness is limited. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo or other active controls (excluding antibiotics) in reducing the duration of symptoms and alleviating symptoms (general feeling of illness, nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, and cough) in children and adults with the common cold.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, Embase, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, LILACS, and Web of Science to 10 June 2021. We searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov on 10 June 2021.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of antihistamine-decongestant-analgesic combinations compared with placebo, other active treatment (excluding antibiotics), or no treatment in children and adults with the common cold.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We categorised the included trials according to the active ingredients.\nMain results\nWe identified 30 studies (6304 participants) including 31 treatment comparisons. The control intervention was placebo in 26 trials and an active substance (paracetamol, chlorphenindione + phenylpropanolamine + belladonna, diphenhydramine) in six trials (two trials had placebo as well as active treatment arms). Reporting of methods was generally poor, and there were large differences in study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes. Most of the included trials involved adult participants. Children were included in nine trials. Three trials included very young children (from six months to five years), and five trials included children aged 2 to 16. One trial included adults and children aged 12 years or older. The trials took place in different settings: university clinics, paediatric departments, family medicine departments, and general practice surgeries.\nAntihistamine-decongestant: 14 trials (1298 participants). Eight trials reported on global effectiveness, of which six studies were pooled (281 participants on active treatment and 284 participants on placebo). The odds ratio (OR) of treatment failure was 0.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.48; moderate certainty evidence); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3.9 (95% CI 3.03 to 5.2). On the final evaluation day (follow-up: 3 to 10 days), 55% of participants in the placebo group had a favourable response compared to 70% on active treatment. Of the two trials not pooled, one showed some global effect, whilst the other showed no effect.\nAdverse effects: the antihistamine-decongestant group experienced more adverse effects than the control group: 128/419 (31%) versus 100/423 (13%) participants suffered one or more adverse effects (OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.78 to 3.21; moderate certainty of evidence).\nAntihistamine-analgesic: four trials (1608 participants). Two trials reported on global effectiveness; data from one trial were presented (290 participants on active treatment and 292 participants on ascorbic acid). The OR of treatment failure was 0.33 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.46; moderate certainty evidence); NNTB 6.67 (95% CI 4.76 to 12.5). Forty-three per cent of participants in the control group and 70% in the active treatment group were cured after six days of treatment. The second trial also showed an effect in favour of the active treatment.\nAdverse effects: there were not significantly more adverse effects in the active treatment group compared to placebo (drowsiness, hypersomnia, sleepiness 10/152 versus 4/120; OR 1.64 (95 % CI 0.48 to 5.59; low certainty evidence).\nAnalgesic-decongestant: seven trials (2575 participants). One trial reported on global effectiveness: 73% of participants in the analgesic-decongestant group reported a benefit compared with 52% in the control group (paracetamol) (OR of treatment failure 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.52; moderate certainty evidence; NNTB 4.7).\nAdverse effects: the decongestant-analgesic group experienced significantly more adverse effects than the control group (199/1122 versus 75/675; OR 1.62 95% CI 1.18 to 2.23; high certainty evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH 17).\nAntihistamine-analgesic-decongestant: six trials (1014 participants). Five trials reported on global effectiveness, of which two studies in adults could be pooled: global effect reported with active treatment (52%) and placebo (34%) was equivalent to a difference of less than one point on a four- or five-point scale; the OR of treatment failure was 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.67; low certainty evidence); NNTB 5.6 (95% CI 3.8 to 10.2). One trial in children aged 2 to 12 years, and two trials in adults found no beneficial effect.\nAdverse effects: in one trial 5/224 (2%) suffered adverse effects with the active treatment versus 9/208 (4%) with placebo. Two other trials reported no differences between treatment groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found a lack of data on the effectiveness of antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations for the common cold. Based on these scarce data, the effect on individual symptoms is probably too small to be clinically relevant. The current evidence suggests that antihistamine-analgesic-decongestant combinations have some general benefit in adults and older children. These benefits must be weighed against the risk of adverse effects. There is no evidence of effectiveness in young children. In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about adverse effects associated with the use of over-the-counter nasal preparations containing phenylpropanolamine.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The 30 included studies differed in the way they were conducted, the included participants, the treatments used, and in the way the effect was measured. There was frequently not enough information in the trials to judge the certainty of the evidence."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7669
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Functional impairment, resulting in poor performance in activities of daily living (ADL) among stroke survivors is common. Current rehabilitation approaches have limited effectiveness in improving ADL performance, function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) after stroke, with improving cognition being the number one research priority in this field. A possible adjunct to stroke rehabilitation might be non-invasive brain stimulation by transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate cortical excitability, and hence to improve these outcomes in people after stroke.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of tDCS on ADL, arm and leg function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect), dropouts and adverse events in people after stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and seven other databases in January 2019. In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, we also searched trials registers and reference lists, handsearched conference proceedings, and contacted authors and equipment manufacturers.\nSelection criteria\nThis is the update of an existing review. In the previous version of this review, we focused on the effects of tDCS on ADL and function. In this update, we broadened our inclusion criteria to compare any kind of active tDCS for improving ADL, function, muscle strength and cognitive abilities (including spatial neglect) versus any kind of placebo or control intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and risk of bias, extracted data, and applied GRADE criteria. If necessary, we contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We collected information on dropouts and adverse events from the trial reports.\nMain results\nWe included 67 studies involving a total of 1729 patients after stroke. We also identified 116 ongoing studies. The risk of bias did not differ substantially for different comparisons and outcomes. The majority of participants had ischaemic stroke, with mean age between 43 and 75 years, in the acute, postacute, and chronic phase after stroke, and level of impairment ranged from severe to less severe. Included studies differed in terms of type, location and duration of stimulation, amount of current delivered, electrode size and positioning, as well as type and location of stroke.\nWe found 23 studies with 781 participants examining the effects of tDCS versus sham tDCS (or any other passive intervention) on our primary outcome measure, ADL after stroke. Nineteen studies with 686 participants reported absolute values and showed evidence of effect regarding ADL performance at the end of the intervention period (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.44; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence). Four studies with 95 participants reported change scores, and showed an effect (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; moderate-quality evidence). Six studies with 269 participants assessed the effects of tDCS on ADL at the end of follow-up and provided absolute values, and found improved ADL (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence). One study with 16 participants provided change scores and found no effect (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.66 to 0.37; low-quality evidence). However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analysis that included only trials with proper allocation concealment.\nThirty-four trials with a total of 985 participants measured upper extremity function at the end of the intervention period. Twenty-four studies with 792 participants that presented absolute values found no effect in favour of tDCS (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.38; moderate-quality evidence). Ten studies with 193 participants that presented change values also found no effect (SMD 0.33, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.79; low-quality evidence). Regarding the effects of tDCS on upper extremity function at the end of follow-up, we identified five studies with a total of 211 participants (absolute values) without an effect (SMD -0.00, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.39; moderate-quality evidence). Three studies with 72 participants presenting change scores found an effect (SMD 1.07; 95% CI 0.04 to 2.11; low-quality evidence). Twelve studies with 258 participants reported outcome data for lower extremity function and 18 studies with 553 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at the end of the intervention period, but there was no effect (high-quality evidence). Three studies with 156 participants reported outcome data on muscle strength at follow-up, but there was no evidence of an effect (moderate-quality evidence). Two studies with 56 participants found no evidence of effect of tDCS on cognitive abilities (low-quality evidence), but one study with 30 participants found evidence of effect of tDCS for improving spatial neglect (very low-quality evidence). In 47 studies with 1330 participants, the proportions of dropouts and adverse events were comparable between groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.13; random-effects model; moderate-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is evidence of very low to moderate quality on the effectiveness of tDCS versus control (sham intervention or any other intervention) for improving ADL outcomes after stroke. However, the results did not persist in a sensitivity analyses including only trials with proper allocation concealment. Evidence of low to high quality suggests that there is no effect of tDCS on arm function and leg function, muscle strength, and cognitive abilities in people after stroke. Evidence of very low quality suggests that there is an effect on hemispatial neglect. There was moderate-quality evidence that adverse events and numbers of people discontinuing the treatment are not increased. Future studies should particularly engage with patients who may benefit the most from tDCS after stroke, but also should investigate the effects in routine application. Therefore, further large-scale randomised controlled trials with a parallel-group design and sample size estimation for tDCS are needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Most strokes take place when a blood clot blocks a blood vessel leading to the brain. Without a proper blood supply, the brain quickly suffers damage, which can be permanent. This damage often causes impairment of ADL, motor and cognitive function among stroke survivors. According to people with stroke, carers and health professionals, improving cognitive abilities after stroke is the number one research priority in this field of medicine. Therefore, neurological rehabilitation, including effective training strategies, is needed to facilitate recovery and to reduce the burden of stroke. Therapies tailored to patients' and carers' needs are especially important. Current rehabilitation strategies have limited effectiveness in improving these impairments. One possibility for enhancing the effects of rehabilitation might be the addition of brain stimulation without breaking the skin, by means of tDCS. This technique can alter how the brain works and may be used to reduce impairment of ADL and function. However, the effectiveness of this intervention for improving rehabilitation outcomes is still unknown."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7670
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDiabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is a common and severe complication that affects 50% of people with diabetes. Painful DPN is reported to occur in 16% to 24% of people with diabetes. A complete and comprehensive management strategy for the prevention and treatment of DPN, whether painful or not, has not yet been defined.\nResearch into treatment for DPN has been characterised by a series of failed clinical trials, with few noteworthy advances. Strategies that support peripheral nerve regeneration and restore neurological function in people with painful or painless DPN are needed. The amino acid acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) plays a role in the transfer of long-chain fatty acids into mitochondria for β-oxidation. ALC supplementation also induces neuroprotective and neurotrophic effects in the peripheral nervous system. Therefore, ALC supplementation targets several mechanisms relevant to potential nerve repair and regeneration, and could have clinical therapeutic potential. There is a need for a systematic review of the evidence from clinical trials.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of ALC for the treatment of DPN.\nSearch methods\nOn 2 July 2018, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We checked references, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of ALC compared with placebo, other therapy, or no intervention in the treatment of DPN. Participants could be of any sex and age, and have type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus, of any severity, with painful or painless DPN. We accepted any definition of minimum criteria for DPN, in accordance with the Toronto Consensus. We imposed no language restriction.\nPain was the primary outcome, measured as the proportion of participants with at least 30% (moderate) or 50% (substantial) decrease in pain over baseline, or as the score on a visual analogue scale (VAS) or Likert scale for pain.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methods.\nMain results\nWe included four studies with 907 participants, which were reported in three publications. Three trials studied ALC versus placebo (675 participants); in one trial the dose of ALC was 2000 mg/day, and in the other two trials, it was 1500 mg/day or 3000 mg/day. The fourth trial studied ALC 1500 mg/day versus methylcobalamin 1.5 mg/day (232 participants). The risk of bias was high in both trials of different ALC doses and low in the other two trials.\nNo included trial measured the proportion of participants with at least moderate (30%) or substantial (50%) pain relief. ALC reduced pain more than placebo, measured on a 0- to 100-mm VAS (MD -9.16, 95% CI -16.76 to -1.57; three studies; 540 participants; P = 0.02; I² = 56%; random-effects; very low-certainty evidence; a higher score indicating more pain). At doses of 1500 mg/day or less, the VAS score after ALC treatment was little different from placebo (MD -0.05, 95% CI -10.00 to 9.89; two studies; 159 participants; P = 0.99; I² = 0%), but at doses greater than 1500 mg/day, ALC reduced pain more than placebo (MD -14.93, 95% CI -19.16 to -10.70; three studies; 381 participants; P < 0.00001; I² = 0%). This subgroup analysis should be viewed with caution as the evidence was even less certain than the overall analysis, which was already of very low certainty.\nTwo placebo-controlled studies reported that vibration perception improved after 12 months. We graded this evidence as very low certainty, due to inconsistency and a high risk of bias, as the trial authors did not provide any numerical data. The placebo-controlled studies did not measure functional impairment and disability scores. No study used validated symptom scales. One study performed sensory testing, but the evidence was very uncertain.\nThe fourth included study compared ALC with methylcobalamin, but did not report effects on pain. There was a reduction from baseline to 24 weeks in functional impairment and disability, based on the change in mean Neuropathy Disability Score (NDS; scale from zero to 10), but there was no important difference between the ALC group (mean score 1.66 ± 1.90) and the methylcobalamin group (mean score 1.35 ± 1.65) groups (P = 0.23; low-certainty evidence).\nOne placebo-controlled study reported that six of 147 participants in the ALC > 1500 mg/day group (4.1%) and two of 147 participants in the placebo group (1.4%) discontinued treatment because of adverse events (headache, facial paraesthesia, and gastrointestinal disorders) (P = 0.17). The other two placebo-controlled studies reported no dropouts due to adverse events, and more pain, paraesthesia, and hyperaesthesias in the placebo group than the 3000 mg/day ALC group, but provided no numerical data. The overall certainty of adverse event evidence for the comparison of ALC versus placebo was low.\nThe study comparing ALC with methylcobalamin reported that 34/117 participants (29.1%) experienced adverse events in the ALC group versus 33/115 (28.7%) in the methylcobalamin group (P = 0.95). Nine participants discontinued treatment due to adverse events (ALC: 4 participants, methylcobalamin: 5 participants), which were most commonly gastrointestinal symptoms. The certainty of the adverse event evidence for ALC versus methylcobalamin was low.\nTwo studies were funded by the manufacturer of ALC and the other two studies had at least one co-author who was a consultant for an ALC manufacturer.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are very uncertain whether ALC causes a reduction in pain after 6 to 12 months' treatment in people with DPN, when compared with placebo, as the evidence is sparse and of low certainty. Data on functional and sensory impairment and symptoms are lacking, or of very low certainty. The evidence on adverse events is too uncertain to make any judgements on safety.\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": "Diabetes is a condition where the amount of sugar in the blood is abnormally high. Damage to nerve fibres as a result of diabetes is called DPN. DPN is a frequent and severe complication of diabetes, affecting about 50% of people with long-term diabetes. Overall, 16% to 24% of people with diabetes experience chronic pain due to nerve damage. The feet, legs, and hands are primarily affected by DPN.\nThere is a need for therapies to restore nerve function and relieve the symptoms of DPN. The Cochrane review authors searched for evidence from randomised trials on the effects of ALC in DPN. Evidence from randomised trials is usually more reliable than other study designs."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7671
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCerebrolysin is a mixture of low-molecular-weight peptides and amino acids derived from porcine brain, which has potential neuroprotective properties. It is widely used in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke in Russia, Eastern Europe, China, and other Asian and post-Soviet countries. This is an update of a review first published in 2010 and last updated in 2020.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of Cerebrolysin or Cerebrolysin-like agents for treating acute ischaemic stroke.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, with Science Citation Index, and LILACS in May 2022 and a number of Russian databases in June 2022. We also searched reference lists, ongoing trials registers, and conference proceedings.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Cerebrolysin or Cerebrolysin-like agents started within 48 hours of stroke onset and continued for any length of time, with placebo or no treatment in people with acute ischaemic stroke.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, extracted data, and applied GRADE criteria to the evidence.\nMain results\nSeven RCTs (1773 participants) met the inclusion criteria of the review. In this update we added one RCT of Cerebrolysin-like agent Cortexin, which contributed 272 participants.\nWe used the same approach for risk of bias assessment that was re-evaluated for the previous update: we added consideration of the public availability of study protocols and reported outcomes to the selective outcome reporting judgement, through identification, examination, and evaluation of study protocols.\nFor the Cerebrolysin studies, we judged the risk of bias for selective outcome reporting to be unclear across all studies; for blinding of participants and personnel to be low in three studies and unclear in the remaining four; and for blinding of outcome assessors to be low in three studies and unclear in four studies. We judged the risk of bias for generation of allocation sequence to be low in one study and unclear in the remaining six studies; for allocation concealment to be low in one study and unclear in six studies; and for incomplete outcome data to be low in three studies and high in the remaining four studies. The manufacturer of Cerebrolysin supported three multicentre studies, either totally, or by providing Cerebrolysin and placebo, randomisation codes, research grants, or statisticians. We judged two studies to be at high risk of other bias and the remaining five studies to be at unclear risk of other bias. We judged the study of Cortexin to be at low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and at unclear risk of bias for all other domains.\nAll-cause death: Cerebrolysin or Cortexin probably result in little to no difference in all-cause death (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.41; 6 trials, 1689 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nNone of the included studies reported on poor functional outcome, defined as death or dependence at the end of the follow-up period, early death (within two weeks of stroke onset), quality of life, or time to restoration of capacity for work.\nOnly one study clearly reported on the cause of death: cerebral infarct (four in the Cerebrolysin and two in the placebo group), heart failure (two in the Cerebrolysin and one in the placebo group), pulmonary embolism (two in the placebo group), and pneumonia (one in the placebo group).\nNon-death attrition (secondary outcome): Cerebrolysin or similar peptide mixtures may result in little to no difference in non-death attrition, but the evidence is very uncertain, with a considerable level of heterogeneity (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.39; 6 trials, 1689 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nSerious adverse events (SAEs): Cerebrolysin probably results in little to no difference in the total number of people with SAEs (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.66; 3 trials, 1335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This comprised fatal SAEs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; 3 trials, 1335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and an increase in the total number of people with non-fatal SAEs (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.10 to 5.23; 3 trials, 1335 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In the subgroup of dosing schedule 30 mL for 10 days (cumulative dose 300 mL), the increase was more prominent (RR 2.87, 95% CI 1.24 to 6.69; 2 trials, 1189 participants).\nTotal number of people with adverse events: Cerebrolysin or similar peptide mixtures may result in little to no difference in the total number of people with adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.14; 4 trials, 1607 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-certainty evidence indicates that Cerebrolysin or Cerebrolysin-like peptide mixtures derived from cattle brain probably have no beneficial effect on preventing all-cause death in acute ischaemic stroke. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that Cerebrolysin probably has no beneficial effect on the total number of people with serious adverse events. Moderate-certainty evidence also indicates a potential increase in non-fatal serious adverse events with Cerebrolysin use.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to know?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In this Cochrane Review, we wanted to find out how well a medicine called Cerebrolysin or other Cerebrolysin-like agents work to treat a stroke."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7672
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn response to the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), governments have implemented a variety of measures to control the spread of the virus and the associated disease. Among these, have been measures to control the pandemic in primary and secondary school settings.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic, with particular focus on the different types of measures implemented in school settings and the outcomes used to measure their impacts on transmission-related outcomes, healthcare utilisation outcomes, other health outcomes as well as societal, economic, and ecological outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and the Educational Resources Information Center, as well as COVID-19-specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease (indexing preprints) on 9 December 2020. We conducted backward-citation searches with existing reviews.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered experimental (i.e. randomised controlled trials; RCTs), quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of measures implemented in the school setting to safely reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcome categories were (i) transmission-related outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of cases); (ii) healthcare utilisation outcomes (e.g. number or proportion of hospitalisations); (iii) other health outcomes (e.g. physical, social and mental health); and (iv) societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. costs, human resources and education). We considered studies that included any population at risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and/or developing COVID-19 disease including students, teachers, other school staff, or members of the wider community.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author extracted data and critically appraised each study. One additional review author validated the extracted data. To critically appraise included studies, we used the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental and observational studies, the QUADAS-2 tool for observational screening studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. Three review authors made an initial assessment of the certainty of evidence with GRADE, and several review authors discussed and agreed on the ratings.\nMain results\nWe included 38 unique studies in the analysis, comprising 33 modelling studies, three observational studies, one quasi-experimental and one experimental study with modelling components.\nMeasures fell into four broad categories: (i) measures reducing the opportunity for contacts; (ii) measures making contacts safer; (iii) surveillance and response measures; and (iv) multicomponent measures. As comparators, we encountered the operation of schools with no measures in place, less intense measures in place, single versus multicomponent measures in place, or closure of schools.\nAcross all intervention categories and all study designs, very low- to low-certainty evidence ratings limit our confidence in the findings. Concerns with the quality of modelling studies related to potentially inappropriate assumptions about the model structure and input parameters, and an inadequate assessment of model uncertainty. Concerns with risk of bias in observational studies related to deviations from intended interventions or missing data. Across all categories, few studies reported on implementation or described how measures were implemented. Where we describe effects as 'positive', the direction of the point estimate of the effect favours the intervention(s); 'negative' effects do not favour the intervention.\nWe found 23 modelling studies assessing measures reducing the opportunity for contacts (i.e. alternating attendance, reduced class size). Most of these studies assessed transmission and healthcare utilisation outcomes, and all of these studies showed a reduction in transmission (e.g. a reduction in the number or proportion of cases, reproduction number) and healthcare utilisation (i.e. fewer hospitalisations) and mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school).\nWe identified 11 modelling studies and two observational studies assessing measures making contacts safer (i.e. mask wearing, cleaning, handwashing, ventilation). Five studies assessed the impact of combined measures to make contacts safer. They assessed transmission-related, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, and a reduction in hospitalisations; however, studies showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (i.e. fewer number of days spent in school).\nWe identified 13 modelling studies and one observational study assessing surveillance and response measures , including testing and isolation, and symptomatic screening and isolation. Twelve studies focused on mass testing and isolation measures, while two looked specifically at symptom-based screening and isolation. Outcomes included transmission, healthcare utilisation, other health, and societal, economic and ecological outcomes. Most of these studies showed effects in favour of the intervention in terms of reductions in transmission and hospitalisations, however some showed mixed or negative effects on societal, economic and ecological outcomes (e.g. fewer number of days spent in school).\nWe found three studies that reported outcomes relating to multicomponent measures , where it was not possible to disaggregate the effects of each individual intervention, including one modelling, one observational and one quasi-experimental study. These studies employed interventions, such as physical distancing, modification of school activities, testing, and exemption of high-risk students, using measures such as hand hygiene and mask wearing. Most of these studies showed a reduction in transmission, however some showed mixed or no effects.\nAs the majority of studies included in the review were modelling studies, there was a lack of empirical, real-world data, which meant that there were very little data on the actual implementation of interventions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur review suggests that a broad range of measures implemented in the school setting can have positive impacts on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and on healthcare utilisation outcomes related to COVID-19. The certainty of the evidence for most intervention-outcome combinations is very low, and the true effects of these measures are likely to be substantially different from those reported here. Measures implemented in the school setting may limit the number or proportion of cases and deaths, and may delay the progression of the pandemic. However, they may also lead to negative unintended consequences, such as fewer days spent in school (beyond those intended by the intervention). Further, most studies assessed the effects of a combination of interventions, which could not be disentangled to estimate their specific effects. Studies assessing measures to reduce contacts and to make contacts safer consistently predicted positive effects on transmission and healthcare utilisation, but may reduce the number of days students spent at school. Studies assessing surveillance and response measures predicted reductions in hospitalisations and school days missed due to infection or quarantine, however, there was mixed evidence on resources needed for surveillance. Evidence on multicomponent measures was mixed, mostly due to comparators. The magnitude of effects depends on multiple factors. New studies published since the original search date might heavily influence the overall conclusions and interpretation of findings for this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"4. Multicomponent measures\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Multicomponent measures: measures from categories 1, 2 and 3 are combined."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7673
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2002.\nColorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in industrialised countries. Experimental evidence has supported the hypothesis that dietary fibre may protect against the development of CRC, although epidemiologic data have been inconclusive.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of dietary fibre on the recurrence of colorectal adenomatous polyps in people with a known history of adenomatous polyps and on the incidence of CRC compared to placebo. Further, to identify the reported incidence of adverse effects, such as abdominal pain or diarrhoea, that resulted from the fibre intervention.\nSearch methods\nWe identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from Cochrane Colorectal Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (search date, 4 April 2016). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Trials Registry Platform on October 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs or quasi-RCTs. The population were those having a history of adenomatous polyps, but no previous history of CRC, and repeated visualisation of the colon/rectum after at least two-years' follow-up. Dietary fibre was the intervention. The primary outcomes were the number of participants with: 1. at least one adenoma, 2. more than one adenoma, 3. at least one adenoma greater than or equal to 1 cm, or 4. a new diagnosis of CRC. The secondary outcome was the number of adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently extracted data, assessed trial quality and resolved discrepancies by consensus. We used risk ratios (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to measure the effect. If statistical significance was reached, we reported the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We combined the study data using the fixed-effect model if it was clinically, methodologically, and statistically reasonable.\nMain results\nWe included seven studies, of which five studies with 4798 participants provided data for analyses in this review. The mean ages of the participants ranged from 56 to 66 years. All participants had a history of adenomas, which had been removed to achieve a polyp-free colon at baseline. The interventions were wheat bran fibre, ispaghula husk, or a comprehensive dietary intervention with high fibre whole food sources alone or in combination. The comparators were low-fibre (2 to 3 g per day), placebo, or a regular diet. The combined data showed no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups for the number of participants with at least one adenoma (5 RCTs, n = 3641, RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.13, low-quality evidence), more than one adenoma (2 RCTs, n = 2542, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20, low-quality evidence), or at least one adenoma 1 cm or greater (4 RCTs, n = 3224, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.20, low-quality evidence) at three to four years. The results on the number of participants diagnosed with colorectal cancer favoured the control group over the dietary fibre group (2 RCTS, n = 2794, RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.07 to 6.85, low-quality evidence). After 8 years of comprehensive dietary intervention, no statistically significant difference was found in the number of participants with at least one recurrent adenoma (1 RCT, n = 1905, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20), or with more than one adenoma (1 RCT, n = 1905, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.24). More participants given ispaghula husk group had at least one recurrent adenoma than the control group (1 RCT, n = 376, RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.08). Other analyses by types of fibre intervention were not statistically significant. The overall dropout rate was over 16% in these trials with no reasons given for these losses. Sensitivity analysis incorporating these missing data shows that none of the results can be considered as robust; when the large numbers of participants lost to follow-up were assumed to have had an event or not, the results changed sufficiently to alter the conclusions that we would draw. Therefore, the reliability of the findings may have been compromised by these missing data (attrition bias) and should be interpreted with caution.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is a lack of evidence from existing RCTs to suggest that increased dietary fibre intake will reduce the recurrence of adenomatous polyps in those with a history of adenomatous polyps within a two to eight year period. However, these results may be unreliable and should be interpreted cautiously, not only because of the high rate of loss to follow-up, but also because adenomatous polyp is a surrogate outcome for the unobserved true endpoint CRC. Longer-term trials with higher dietary fibre levels are needed to enable confident conclusion.\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": "Colorectal (bowel) cancer is common worldwide but is especially prevalent in industrialised countries. Genes, diet and lifestyle all seem to be important in the development of bowel cancer. Several communities with low bowel cancer rates have diets that are rich in fibre. Increasing the levels of fibre in the diet in industrialised countries might therefore help to reduce the rate of bowel cancer."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7674
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nWorldwide at least 100 million people are thought to have prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD). This population has a five times greater chance of suffering a recurrent cardiovascular event than people without known CVD. Secondary CVD prevention is defined as action aimed to reduce the probability of recurrence of such events. Drug interventions have been shown to be cost-effective in reducing this risk and are recommended in international guidelines. However, adherence to recommended treatments remains sub-optimal. In order to influence non-adherence, there is a need to develop scalable and cost-effective behaviour-change interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of mobile phone text messaging in patients with established arterial occlusive events on adherence to treatment, fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, and adverse effects.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on Web of Science on 7 November 2016, and two clinical trial registers on 12 November 2016. We contacted authors of included studies for missing information and searched reference lists of relevant papers. We applied no language or date restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised trials with at least 50% of the participants with established arterial occlusive events. We included trials investigating interventions using short message service (SMS) or multimedia messaging service (MMS) with the aim to improve adherence to medication for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. Eligible comparators were no intervention or other modes of communication.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. In addition, we attempted to contact all authors on how the SMS were developed.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials (reported in 13 reports) with 1310 participants randomised. Follow-up ranged from one month to 12 months. Due to heterogeneity in the methods, population and outcome measures, we were unable to conduct meta-analysis on these studies. All seven studies reported on adherence, but using different methods and scales. Six out of seven trials showed a beneficial effect of mobile phone text messaging for medication adherence. Dale 2015a, reported significantly greater medication adherence score in the intervention group (Mean Difference (MD) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.97; 123 participants randomised) at six months. Khonsari 2015 reported less adherence in the control group (Relative Risk (RR) 4.09, 95% CI 1.82 to 9.18; 62 participants randomised) at eight weeks. Pandey 2014 (34 participants randomised) assessed medication adherence through self-reported logs with 90% adherence in the intervention group compared to 70% in the control group at 12 months. Park 2014a (90 participants randomised) reported a greater increase of the medication adherence score in the control group, but also measured adherence with an event monitoring system for a number of medications with adherence levels ranging from 84.1% adherence to 86.2% in the intervention group and 79.7% to 85.7% in the control group at 30 days. Quilici 2013, reported reduced odds of non-adherence in the intervention group (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.86, 521 participants randomised) at 30 days. Fang 2016, reported that participants given SMS alone had reduced odds of being non-adherent compared to telephone reminders (OR 0.40 95% CI 0.18 to 0.63; 280 patients randomised). Kamal 2015 reported higher levels of adherence in the intervention arm (adjusted MD 0.54, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.85; 200 participants randomised).\nKhonsari 2015 was the only study to report fatal cardiovascular events and only reported two events, both in the control arm. No study reported on the other primary outcomes. No study reported repetitive thumb injury or road traffic crashes or other adverse events that were related to the intervention.\nFour authors replied to our questionnaire on SMS development. No study reported examining causes of non-adherence or provided SMS tailored to individual patient characteristics.\nThe included studies were small, heterogeneous and included participants recruited directly after acute events. All studies were assessed as having high risk of bias across at least one domain. Most of the studies came from high-income countries, with two studies conducted in an upper middle-income country (China, Malaysia), and one study from a lower middle-income country (Pakistan). The quality of the evidence was found to be very low. There was no obvious conflicts of interest from authors, although only two declared their funding.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhile the results of this systematic review are promising, there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of text message-based interventions for adherence to medications for secondary prevention of CVD. Sufficiently powered, high-quality randomised trials are needed, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.\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 from these studies was very low. Additional high-quality studies on the use of text messages for encouraging people suffering from heart disease to take their medication regularly are needed, particularly in low- and middle-income countries."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7675
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDipyrone (metamizole) is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug used in some countries to treat pain (postoperative, colic, cancer, and migraine); it is banned in other countries because of an association with life-threatening blood disorders. This review replaces a 2010 Cochrane review that has been withdrawn.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of single dose dipyrone for moderate to severe acute postoperative pain using methods that permit comparison with other analgesics evaluated in standardised trials using almost identical methods and outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS to 11 August 2015; the Oxford Pain Relief Database; two clinical trial registries; and the reference lists of articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of single dose dipyrone for relief of established moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults. We accepted oral, rectal, intramuscular, and intravenous routes of administration.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently considered studies for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used summed total pain relief or pain intensity difference (TOTPAR or SPID) over four to six hours to calculate the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief. From derived results, we calculated the risk ratio and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT), with 95% confidence intervals (CI), for one participant to experience at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours compared to placebo. We looked at use of rescue medication and time to use of rescue medication as additional measures of efficacy. We also looked for information on adverse events and withdrawals.\nMain results\nWe included eight studies, involving 809 participants, comparing oral dipyrone 500 mg (143 participants), oral dipyrone 1000 mg (57 participants), and intramuscular dipyrone 2000 mg (35 participants) with placebo (236 participants). In addition to placebo, all studies used active controls (ibuprofen, paracetamol, aspirin, flurbiprofen, ketoprofen; 338 participants). Seven studies used the oral route of administration, and one study used the intramuscular route. The mean age ranged from 23 to 62 years. Six studies included both men and women, and two studies included only women. All the studies were small, but were otherwise of moderate to good quality.\nOver 70% of participants experienced our primary outcome of at least 50% pain relief over four to six hours with oral dipyrone 500 mg compared to 30% with placebo (five studies, 288 participants; NNT 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.1)) (moderate quality evidence). There were insufficient data to assess other doses or routes of administration of dipyrone.\nFewer participants needed rescue medication within four to six hours with dipyrone 500 mg than with placebo (7% with dipyrone versus 34% with placebo; four studies, 248 participants) (low quality evidence).\nThe data on numbers of participants experiencing any adverse event was inconsistently reported and no analysis was possible. No serious adverse events or adverse event withdrawals were reported (very low quality evidence).\nThere were too few data to compare dipyrone directly with other active treatments.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on very limited information, a single dose of dipyrone 500 mg provides good pain relief to about 70% of people treated, compared to about 30% with placebo. For every five people given dipyrone 500 mg, two people would experience this level of pain relief over four to six hours who would not have done with placebo, and fewer people would need rescue medication.\nWe were unable to compare dipyrone directly with other active treatments, or to assess the effects of different doses or routes of administration, or the number of participants experiencing adverse events, because of insufficient data and inadequate reporting.\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": "A single 500 mg dose of dipyrone provided effective pain relief (50% or more reduction in pain over four to six hours) for 7 in 10 (70%) participants, compared with 3 in 10 (30%) with placebo (five studies, 288 participants in the comparison; moderate quality evidence), and fewer participants need additional painkillers within four to six hours (7% with dipyrone, 34% with placebo; four studies, 248 participants; low quality evidence).\nThere were too few data to compare dipyrone directly with other painkillers.\nThere was too little information available to draw any conclusions about other doses and ways of giving dipyrone used in these studies, or about the number of people who had side effects. The studies reported no serious side effects or people withdrawing from the studies because of side effects, although not all studies provided information on these outcomes."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7676
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMillions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir, are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). Sustained virological response (SVR) is used by investigators and regulatory agencies as a surrogate outcome for morbidity and mortality, based solely on observational evidence. However, there have been no randomised trials that have validated that usage.\nObjectives\nTo assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and SVR. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The trials were generally short-term trials and designed primarily to assess the effect of treatment on SVR. The trials evaluated 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered DAAs that were discontinued or withdrawn from the market. Study populations were treatment-naive in 95 trials, had been exposed to treatment in 17 trials, and comprised both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced individuals in 24 trials. The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.\nWe could not reliably determine the effect of DAAs on the market or under development on our primary outcome of hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality. There were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and only limited data on mortality from 11 trials (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%); OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, very low-quality evidence). We did not perform Trial Sequential Analysis on this outcome.\nThere is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events (DAA 5.2% versus control 5.6%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15 , 15,817 participants, 43 trials). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs reduce the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20% when compared with placebo. The only DAA that showed a lower risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.\nDAAs on the market or under development may reduce the risk of no SVR from 54.1% in untreated people to 23.8% in people treated with DAA (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, 6886 participants, 32 trials, low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.\nOnly 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).\nThere was insufficient evidence from trials on withdrawn or discontinued DAAs to determine their effect on hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, these DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73; 29 trials, very low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.\nNone of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence for our main outcomes of interest come from short-term trials, and we are unable to determine the effect of long-term treatment with DAAs. The rates of hepatitis C morbidity and mortality observed in the trials are relatively low and we are uncertain as to how DAAs affect this outcome. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to judge if DAAs have beneficial or harmful effects on other clinical outcomes for chronic HCV. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs may reduce the number of people with detectable virus in their blood, but we do not have sufficient evidence from randomised trials that enables us to understand how SVR affects long-term clinical outcomes. SVR is still an outcome that needs proper validation in randomised clinical trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included 138 randomised clinical trials. All included trials were at high risk of bias. The 138 trials used 51 different DAAs. Of these, 84 trials assessed DAAs on the market or under development; 57 trials were on DAAs withdrawn from development or the market. Trials were conducted from 2004 to 2016. The trials were from all over the world including 34 different countries. We included 17 trials where all the participants had previously been treated for hepatitis C (treatment-experienced) before being included in the trial. There were 95 trials that included only participants who had not been previously treated for hepatitis C (treatment-naive). The intervention periods ranged from one day to 48 weeks with an average of 14 weeks. The combined intervention period and follow-up period ranged from one day to 120 weeks with an average of 34 weeks."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7677
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDepression is a highly prevalent mood disorder that is characterised by persistent low mood, diminished interest, and loss of pleasure. Music therapy may be helpful in modulating moods and emotions. An update of the 2008 Cochrane review was needed to improve knowledge on effects of music therapy for depression.\nObjectives\n1. To assess effects of music therapy for depression in people of any age compared with treatment as usual (TAU) and psychological, pharmacological, and/or other therapies.\n2. To compare effects of different forms of music therapy for people of any age with a diagnosis of depression.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases: the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMD-CTR; from inception to 6 May 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; to 17 June 2016); Thomson Reuters/Web of Science (to 21 June 2016); Ebsco/PsycInfo, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, and PubMed (to 5 July 2016); the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Guideline Clearing House, and OpenGrey (to 6 September 2016); and the Digital Access to Research Theses (DART)-Europe E-theses Portal, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database (to 7 September 2016). We checked reference lists of retrieved articles and relevant systematic reviews and contacted trialists and subject experts for additional information when needed. We updated this search in August 2017 and placed potentially relevant studies in the \"Awaiting classification\" section; we will incorporate these into the next version of this review as appropriate.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing music therapy versus treatment as usual (TAU), psychological therapies, pharmacological therapies, other therapies, or different forms of music therapy for reducing depression.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data from all included studies. We calculated standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data and odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic.\nMain results\nWe included in this review nine studies involving a total of 421 participants, 411 of whom were included in the meta-analysis examining short-term effects of music therapy for depression. Concerning primary outcomes, we found moderate-quality evidence of large effects favouring music therapy and TAU over TAU alone for both clinician-rated depressive symptoms (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.69 to -0.27, 3 RCTs, 1 CCT, n = 219) and patient-reported depressive symptoms (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.34, 3 RCTs, 1 CCT, n = 142). Music therapy was not associated with more or fewer adverse events than TAU. Regarding secondary outcomes, music therapy plus TAU was superior to TAU alone for anxiety and functioning. Music therapy and TAU was not more effective than TAU alone for improved quality of life (SMD 0.32, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.80, P = 0.20, n = 67, low-quality evidence). We found no significant discrepancies in the numbers of participants who left the study early (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.70, P = 0.26, 5 RCTs, 1 CCT, n = 293, moderate-quality evidence). Findings of the present meta-analysis indicate that music therapy added to TAU provides short-term beneficial effects for people with depression if compared to TAU alone. Additionally, we are uncertain about the effects of music therapy versus psychological therapies on clinician-rated depression (SMD -0.78, 95% CI -2.36 to 0.81, 1 RCT, n = 11, very low-quality evidence), patient-reported depressive symptoms (SMD -1.28, 95% CI -3.75 to 1.02, 4 RCTs, n = 131, low-quality evidence), quality of life (SMD -1.31, 95% CI - 0.36 to 2.99, 1 RCT, n = 11, very low-quality evidence), and leaving the study early (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.49, 4 RCTs, n = 157, moderate-quality evidence). We found no eligible evidence addressing adverse events, functioning, and anxiety. We do not know whether one form of music therapy is better than another for clinician-rated depressive symptoms (SMD -0.52, 95% CI -1.87 to 0.83, 1 RCT, n = 9, very low-quality evidence), patient-reported depressive symptoms (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -1.33 to 1.30, 1 RCT, n = 9, very low-quality evidence), quality of life (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -1.57 to 1.08, 1 RCT, n = 9, very low-quality evidence), or leaving the study early (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.46, 1 RCT, n = 10). We found no eligible evidence addressing adverse events, functioning, or anxiety.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFindings of the present meta-analysis indicate that music therapy provides short-term beneficial effects for people with depression. Music therapy added to treatment as usual (TAU) seems to improve depressive symptoms compared with TAU alone. Additionally, music therapy plus TAU is not associated with more or fewer adverse events than TAU alone. Music therapy also shows efficacy in decreasing anxiety levels and improving functioning of depressed individuals.\nFuture trials based on adequate design and larger samples of children and adolescents are needed to consolidate our findings. Researchers should consider investigating mechanisms of music therapy for depression. It is important to clearly describe music therapy, TAU, the comparator condition, and the profession of the person who delivers the intervention, for reproducibility and comparison purposes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Which studies were included in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included nine studies with a total of 421 people of any age group (from adolescents to older people). Studies compared effects of music therapy versus treatment as usual, and versus psychological therapy. Additionally, we examined the differences between two different forms of music therapy: active (where people sing or play music) and receptive (where people listen to music)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7678
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFunctional Abdominal Pain Disorders (FAPDs) present a considerable burden to paediatric patients, impacting quality of life, school attendance and causing higher rates of anxiety and depression disorders. There are no international guidelines for the management of this condition. A previous Cochrane Review in 2011 found no evidence to support the use of antidepressants in this context.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for FAPDs in children and adolescents.\nSearch methods\nIn this updated review, we searched The Cochrane Library, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and two clinical trial registers from inception until February 3th, 2020. We also updated our search of databases of ongoing research, reference lists and 'grey literature' from inception to February 3th, 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antidepressants to placebo, to no treatment or to any other intervention, in children aged 4 to 18 years with a FAPD diagnosis as per the Rome or any other defined criteria (as defined by the authors). The primary outcomes of interest included treatment success (as defined by the authors), pain severity, pain frequency and withdrawal due to adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nAll citations were reviewed independently by two authors, with disagreement solved with a third-party arbiter. All potential studies had full texts reviewed, and once again, independent decisions made, with disagreement solved by consensus. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment was completed independently following Cochrane standards. Where homogenous data was available, meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. GRADE assessement of the certainty of the evidence was performed.\nMain results\nThree studies were eligible for inclusion: two using amitriptyline (AMI) and one using citalopram. The studies recruited 223 children diagnosed with either Rome II or Rome III criteria.\nFor the primary outcome of treatment success, two studies used report of success on a symptom-based Likert scale, with either a two-point reduction or the two lowest levels defined as success. The other study defined success as a 15% improvement in Quality of life (QOL) rating scales, which could not be included in the meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity of the outcome measure. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of antidepressants compared with placebo on treatment success (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.87 - 1.56]; 2 studies, 205 participants; low certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence due to significant imprecision due to extremely sparse data.\nWe are uncertain whether children were more likely to withdraw due to adverse events with antidepressants or placebo, RR 3.80 (95% CI 0.61 - 23.57, very serious imprecision due to low events and number of participants. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed effect model and analysing just for AMI found no change in this result. Due to heterogeneous and limited reporting, no further meta-analysis was possible for other outcomes of pain severity or frequency.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of antidepressants on treatment success of FAPDs in childhood when compared with placebo (low certainty evidence). The small number of participants in the studies and low number of withdrawals did not enable us to determine reliably whether children are likely to stop taking medication due to adverse events (low certainty evidence). There is currently very little evidence to support clinical decision-making regarding the use of these medications. Further studies must consider sample size, homogenous and relevant outcome measures and longer follow up.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The question of whether antidepressants can improve symptoms in children and adolescents with FAPDs remains unanswered. There were no serious adverse events when compared with placebo (dummy treatment). The number of studies was low, and the number of people in them was also low, meaning that more studies are needed to answer the question."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7679
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis review is one of a suite of six Cochrane reviews looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.\nChronic rhinosinusitis is a common condition involving inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses. It is characterised by nasal blockage and nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Oral corticosteroids are used to control the inflammatory response and improve symptoms.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of a short course of oral corticosteroids as an adjunct ('add-on') therapy in people with chronic rhinosinusitis who are already on standard treatments.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 11 August 2015.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a short course (up to 21 days) of oral corticosteroids to placebo or no treatment, where all patients were also receiving pharmacological treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity, and the adverse event of mood or behavioural disturbances. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score, and the adverse events of insomnia, gastrointestinal disturbances and osteoporosis. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.\nMain results\nTwo trials with a total of 78 participants met the inclusion criteria. Both the populations and the 'standard' treatments differed in the two studies.\nOral steroids as an adjunct to intranasal corticosteroids\nOne trial in adults with nasal polyps included 30 participants. All participants used intranasal corticosteroids and were randomised to either short-course oral steroids (oral methylprednisolone, 1 mg/kg and reduced progressively over a 21-day treatment course) or no additional treatment. None of the primary outcome measures of interest in this review were reported by the study. There may have been an important reduction in the size of the polyps (measured by the nasal polyps score, a secondary outcome measure) in patients receiving oral steroids and intranasal corticosteroids, compared to intranasal corticosteroids alone (mean difference (MD) -0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.87 to -0.05; 30 participants; scale 1 to 4) at the end of treatment (21 days). This corresponds to a large effect size, but we are very uncertain about this estimate as we judged the study to be at high risk of bias. Moreover, longer-term data were not available and the other outcomes of interest were not reported.\nOral steroids as an adjunct to antibiotics\nOne trial in children (mean age of eight years) without nasal polyps included 48 participants. The trial compared oral corticosteroids (oral methylprednisolone, 1 mg/kg and reduced progressively over a 15-day treatment course) with placebo in participants who also received a 30-day course of antibiotics. This study addressed one of the primary outcome measures (disease severity) and one secondary outcome (CT score). For disease severity the four key symptoms used to define chronic rhinosinusitis in children (nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure, cough) were combined into one score. There was a greater improvement in symptom severity 30 days after the start of treatment in patients who received oral steroids and antibiotics compared with placebo and antibiotics (MD -7.10, 95% CI -9.59 to -4.61; 45 participants; scale 0 to 40). The observed mean difference corresponds to a large effect size. At the same time point there was a difference in CT scan score (MD -2.90, 95% CI -4.91 to -0.89; 45 participants; scale 0 to 24). We assessed the quality of the evidence to be low.\nThere were no data available for the longer term (three months).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere might be an improvement in symptom severity, polyps size and condition of the sinuses when assessed using CT scans in patients taking oral corticosteroids when these are used as an adjunct therapy to antibiotics or intranasal corticosteroids, but the quality of the evidence supporting this is low orvery low (we are uncertain about the effect estimate; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect). It is unclear whether the benefits of oral corticosteroids as an adjunct therapy are sustained beyond the short follow-up period reported (up to 30 days), as no longer-term data were available.\nThere were no data in this review about the adverse effects associated with short courses of oral corticosteroids as an adjunct therapy.\nMore research in this area, particularly research evaluating longer-term outcomes and adverse effects, is required.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Chronic rhinosinusitis is a common condition that is defined as inflammation of the nose and paranasal sinuses (a group of air-filled spaces behind the nose, eyes and cheeks). Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis experience at least two or more of the following symptoms for at least 12 weeks: blocked nose, discharge from their nose or runny nose, pain or pressure in their face and/or a reduced sense of smell (hyposmia). Some people will also have nasal polyps, which are grape-like swellings of the normal nasal lining inside the nasal passage and sinuses.\nShort courses of oral corticosteroids are a widely used treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis. They work by controlling inflammation and when polyps are present they rapidly reduce the size of the polyps to improve symptoms. The adverse effects of corticosteroids can include insomnia, mood changes and gastrointestinal changes (such as stomach pain, heartburn, diarrhoea, constipation, nausea and vomiting). When given over the longer term, or through many repeated short courses, it is also possible to develop osteoporosis (fragile bones)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
7680
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChanging population demographics have led to an increasing number of functionally dependent older people who require care and medical treatment. In many countries, government policy aims to shift resources into the community from institutional care settings with the expectation that this will reduce costs and improve the quality of care compared.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of long-term home or foster home care versus institutional care for functionally dependent older people.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers to November 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies complying with the EPOC study design criteria and comparing the effects of long-term home care versus institutional care for functionally dependent older people.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. We reported the results narratively, as the substantial heterogeneity across studies meant that meta-analysis was not appropriate.\nMain results\nWe included 10 studies involving 16,377 participants, all of which were conducted in high income countries. Included studies compared community-based care with institutional care (care homes). The sample size ranged from 98 to 11,803 (median N = 204). There was substantial heterogeneity in the healthcare context, interventions studied, and outcomes assessed. One study was a randomised trial (N = 112); other included studies used designs that had potential for bias, particularly due lack of randomisation, baseline imbalances, and non-blinded outcome assessment. Most studies did not select (or exclude) participants for any specific disease state, with the exception of one study that only included patients if they had a stroke. All studies had methodological limitations, so readers should interpret results with caution.\nIt is uncertain whether long-term home care compared to nursing home care decreases mortality risk (2 studies, N = 314, very-low certainty evidence). Estimates ranged from a nearly three-fold increased risk of mortality in the homecare group (risk ratio (RR) 2.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 5.32) to a 62% relative reduction (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.61). We did not pool data due to the high degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 94%).\nIt is uncertain whether the intervention has a beneficial effect on physical function, as the certainty of evidence is very low (5 studies, N = 1295). Two studies reported that participants who received long-term home care had improved activities of daily living compared to those in a nursing home, whereas a third study reported that all participants performed equally on physical function.\nIt is uncertain whether long-term home care improves happiness compared to nursing home care (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.04) or general satisfaction because the certainty of evidence was very low (2 studies, N = 114).\nThe extent to which long-term home care was associated to more or fewer adverse health outcomes than nursing home care was not reported.\nIt is uncertain whether long-term home care compared to nursing home care decreases the risk of hospital admission (very low-certainty evidence, N = 14,853). RR estimates ranged from 2.75 (95% CI 2.59 to 2.92), showing an increased risk for those receiving care at home, to 0.82 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.93), showing a slightly reduced risk for the same group. We did not pool data due to the high degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 99%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are insufficient high-quality published data to support any particular model of care for functionally dependent older people. Community-based care was not consistently beneficial across all the included studies; there were some data suggesting that community-based care may be associated with improved quality of life and physical function compared to institutional care. However, community alternatives to institutional care may be associated with increased risk of hospitalisation. Future studies should assess healthcare utilisation, perform economic analysis, and consider caregiver burden.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What we studied in the review\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In many countries, frail older adults with different illnesses may receive long-term care in nursing homes or other institutions. Due to the increasing number of older adults and the costs associated with care homes, other ways of providing care are necessary, including extra care in a person's own home. We assessed studies that provided care at home versus care in an institution."
}
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.