dataset
stringclasses 1
value | id
stringlengths 1
5
| messages
listlengths 2
2
|
|---|---|---|
query-laysum
|
8285
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIncontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is one of the most common skin problems in adults who are incontinent for urine, stool, or both. In practice, products and procedures are the same for both prevention and treatment of IAD.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of various products and procedures to prevent\nand treat incontinence-associated dermatitis in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 28 September 2016). Additionally we searched other electronic databases: CENTRAL(2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1946 to May Week 3 2015), MEDLINE In-Process (inception to 26 May 2015), CINAHL(December 1981 to 28 May 2015), Web of Science (WoS; inception to 28 May 2015) and handsearched conference proceedings (to June 2015) and the reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted authors and experts in the field.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, performed in any healthcare setting, with included participants over 18 years of age, with or without IAD. We included trials comparing the (cost) effectiveness of topical skin care products such as skin cleansers, moisturisers, and skin protectants of different compositions and skin care procedures aiming to prevent and treat IAD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-texts, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials.\nMain results\nWe included 13 trials with 1316 participants in a qualitative synthesis. Participants were incontinent for urine, stool, or both, and were residents in a nursing home or were hospitalised.\nEleven trials had a small sample size and short follow-up periods. .The overall risk of bias in the included studies was high. The data were not suitable for meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in participant population, skin care products, skin care procedures, outcomes, and measurement tools.\nNine trials compared different topical skin care products, including a combination of products. Two trials tested a structured skin care procedure. One trial compared topical skin care products alongside frequencies of application. One trial compared frequencies of application of topical skin care products.\nWe found evidence in two trials, being of low and moderate quality, that soap and water performed poorly in the prevention and treatment of IAD (primary outcomes of this review). The first trial indicated that the use of a skin cleanser might be more effective than the use of soap and water (risk ratio (RR) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.87; low quality evidence). The second trial indicated that a structured skin care procedure, being a washcloth with cleansing, moisturising, and protecting properties, might be more effective than soap and water (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.79; moderate quality evidence). Findings from the other trials, all being of low to very low quality, suggest that applying a leave-on product (moisturiser, skin protectant, or a combination) might be more effective than not applying a leave-on product. No trial reported on the third primary outcome 'number of participants not satisfied with treatment' or on adverse effects.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLittle evidence, of very low to moderate quality, exists on the effects of interventions for preventing and treating IAD in adults. Soap and water performed poorly in the prevention and treatment of IAD. Application of leave-on products (moisturisers, skin protectants, or a combination) and avoiding soap seems to be more effective than withholding these products. The performance of leave-on products depends on the combination of ingredients, the overall formulation and the usage (e.g. amount applied). High quality confirmatory trials using standardised, and comparable prevention and treatment regimens in different settings/regions are required. Furthermore, to increase the comparability of trial results, we recommend the development of a core outcome set, including validated measurement tools. The evidence in this review is current up to 28 September 2016.\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": "The trials included in this review tested skin care products, procedures and frequencies of using a skin care product. Very limited evidence exists on the effects of interventions for preventing and treating IAD in adults. Larger, long-term and well performed trials are required. Furthermore, we recommend the development of a list of outcomes which are important for patients and will guide researchers in their study. This list should include well developed tools to measure the items in order to obtain accurate results."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8286
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUveitis is the most common extra-articular manifestation of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and a potentially sight-threatening condition characterized by intraocular inflammation. Current treatment for JIA-associated uveitis (JIA-U) is largely based on physician experience, observational evidence and consensus guidelines, resulting in considerable variations in practice.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors used for treatment of JIA-U.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We last searched the electronic databases on 3 February 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TNF inhibitors with placebo in participants with a diagnosis of JIA and uveitis who were aged 2 to 18 years old.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology and graded the certainty of the body of evidence for seven outcomes using the GRADE classification.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs with 134 participants.\nOne study conducted in the USA randomized participants to etanercept or placebo (N = 12). Two studies, one conducted in the UK (N = 90) and one in France (N = 32), randomized participants to adalimumab or placebo. All studies were at low risk of bias. Initial pooled estimates suggested that TNF-inhibitors may result in little to no difference on treatment success defined as 0 to trace cells on Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN)-grading; or two-step decrease in activity based on SUN grading (estimated risk ratio (RR) 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 2.10; 2 studies; 43 participants; low-certainty evidence) or treatment failure defined as a two-step increase in activity based on SUN grading (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.15; 1 study; 31 participants; low-certainty evidence). Further analysis using the individual trial definitions of treatment response and failure suggested a positive treatment effect of TNF inhibitors; a RR of treatment success of 2.60 (95% CI 1.30 to 5.20; 3 studies; 124 participants; low-certainty evidence), and RR of treatment failure of 0.23 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.50; 3 studies; 133 participants). Almost all the evidence was on adalimumab and the evidence on etanercept was very limited. For secondary outcomes, one study suggests that adalimumab may have little to no effect on risk of recurrence after induction of remission at three months (RR 2.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 20.45; 90 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and visual acuity, but the evidence is very uncertain; mean difference in longitudinal logMAR score change over six months was -0.01 (95% CI –0.06 to 0.03) and -0.02 (95% CI –0.07 to 0.03) using the best and worst logMAR measurement, respectively (low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from one study suggested that adalimumab treatment results in reduction of topical steroid doses at six months (hazard ratio 3.58; 95% CI 1.24 to 10.32; 74 participants who took one or more topical steroid per day at baseline). Adverse events, including injection site reactions and infections, were more common in the TNF inhibitor group. Serious adverse events were uncommon.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAdalimumab appears to increase the likelihood of treatment success and decrease the likelihood of treatment failure when compared with placebo. The evidence was less conclusive about a positive treatment effect with etanercept. Adverse events from JIA-U trials are in keeping with the known side effect profile of TNF inhibitors. Standard validated JIA-U outcome measures are required to homogenize assessment and to allow for comparison and analysis of multiple datasets.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We identified three relevant studies that included 134 participants. Two studies investigated a TNF inhibitor called adalimumab and one study investigated a TNF inhibitor called etanercept. Each study measured the effect of the medications differently from one another, so it was difficult to compare the studies and draw conclusions. Our initial analysis showed no clear difference between TNF inhibitors and placebo with regard to the risk of treatment success or treatment failure. On reviewing outcomes assessed in the individual studies, TNF inhibitors improved the chance of treatment success and reduced the risk of treatment failure when compared with placebo. One study showed that more patients taking adalimumab than placebo were able to reduce the number of eye drops used, suggesting that the adalimumab may have reduced inflammation.\nMedication-related side effects including injection site reactions and infections were generally mild and were more common in the TNF inhibitor group. Serious adverse events were uncommon but were also seen more often in the TNF inhibitor groups. The overall side effects were similar to those commonly seen in the medications in other diseases."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8287
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAround 16% of adults have symptoms of overactive bladder (OAB; urgency with frequency and/or urge incontinence), with prevalence increasing with age. Anticholinergic drugs are commonly used to treat this condition.\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2006.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of anticholinergic drugs compared with placebo or no treatment for treating overactive bladder syndrome in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 14 January 2020), and the reference lists of relevant articles. We updated this search on 3 May 2022, but these results have not yet been fully incorporated.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised or quasi-randomised trials in adults with overactive bladder syndrome that compared an anticholinergic drug alone with placebo treatment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data from the included studies, including an assessment of the risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence using the GRADE approach. We processed data as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.\nMain results\nWe included 104 studies, 71 of which were new or updated for this version of the review. Although 12 studies did not report the number of participants, there were 47,106 people in the remainder of the included studies. The majority of the studies had insufficient information to allow judgement of risk of bias and we judged them to be unclear for all domains. Nine anticholinergic drugs were included in these studies: darifenacin; fesoterodine; imidafenacin; oxybutynin; propantheline; propiverine; solifenacin; tolterodine and trospium. No studies were found that compared anticholinergic drugs to no treatment.\nAt the end of the treatment period, anticholinergics may slightly increase condition-specific quality of life (mean difference (MD) 4.41 lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.28 lower to 3.54 lower (scale range -100 to 0); 12 studies, 6804 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticholinergics are probably better than placebo in terms of patient perception of cure or improvement (risk ratio (RR) 1.38, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.66; 9 studies, 8457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and the mean number of urgency episodes per 24-hour period (MD 0.85 lower, 95% CI 1.03 lower to 0.67 lower; 23 studies, 16,875 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nCompared to placebo, anticholinergics may result in an increase in dry mouth adverse events (RR 3.50, 95% CI 3.26 to 3.75; 66 studies, 38,368 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in an increased risk of urinary retention (RR 3.52, 95% CI 2.04 to 6.08; 17 studies, 7862 participants; low-certainty evidence). Taking anticholinergics may be more likely to lead to participants withdrawing from the studies due to adverse events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; 61 studies, 36,943 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, taking anticholinergics probably reduces the mean number of micturitions per 24-hour period compared to placebo (MD 0.85 lower, 95% CI 0.98 lower to 0.73 lower; 30 studies, 19,395 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe use of anticholinergic drugs by people with overactive bladder syndrome results in important but modest improvements in symptoms compared with placebo treatment. In addition, recent studies suggest that this is generally associated with only modest improvement in quality of life. Adverse effects were higher with all anticholinergics compared with placebo. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were also higher for all anticholinergics except tolterodine. It is not known whether any benefits of anticholinergics are sustained during long-term treatment or after treatment stops.\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 wanted to see whether a group of drugs, called anticholinergics, made a difference to adults who had an overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome when compared to a placebo (fake) treatment. We collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8288
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2014.\nEpilepsy is a common neurological condition characterised by recurrent seizures. Pharmacological treatment remains the first choice to control epilepsy. Sulthiame (STM) is widely used as an antiepileptic drug in Europe and Israel. In this review, we have presented a summary of evidence for the use of STM as monotherapy in epilepsy.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and side effect profile of STM as monotherapy when compared with placebo or another antiepileptic drug for people with epilepsy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases on 13 April 2020: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 10 April 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy. We imposed no language restrictions. We contacted the manufacturers of STM and researchers in the field to ask about ongoing and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled monotherapy trials of STM in people of any age with epilepsy of any aetiology.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted the relevant data. We assessed the following outcomes: treatment withdrawal; seizure-free at six months; adverse effects; and quality of life scoring. We conducted the primary analyses by intention-to-treat where possible, and presented a narrative analysis of the data.\nMain results\nWe included four studies involving a total of 355 participants: three studies (209 participants) with a diagnosis of benign epilepsy of childhood with centrotemporal spikes (BECTS), and one study (146 participants) with a diagnosis of generalised tonic-clonic seizures (GTCS). STM was given as monotherapy compared with placebo and with levetiracetam in the BECTS studies, and compared with phenytoin in the GTCS study. An English translation of the full text of one of the BECTS studies could not be found, and analysis of this study was based solely on the English translation of the abstract.\nFor the primary outcome, the total number of dropouts caused either by seizure recurrence or adverse reaction was significantly higher in the levetiracetam treatment arm compared to the STM treatment arm (RR 0.32, 95% Cl 0.10 to 1.03; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence). For the secondary outcomes for this comparison, results for seizure freedom were inconclusive (RR 1.12, 95% Cl 0.88 to 1.44; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nReporting of adverse effects was incomplete. Participants receiving STM were significantly less likely to develop gingival hyperplasia than participants receiving phenytoin in the GTCS study (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.58; 1 study, 146 participants; low-certainty evidence). No further statistically significant adverse events were noted when STM was compared with phenytoin or placebo. The most common adverse events were related to behavioural disturbances when STM was compared with levetiracetam (RR 0.95, 95% Cl 0.59 to 1.55; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence), with the same incidence in both groups. No data were reported for quality of life.\nOverall, we assessed one study at high risk of bias and one study at unclear bias across the seven domains, mainly due to lack of information regarding study design. Only one trial reported effective methods for blinding. The risk of bias assessments for the other two studies ranged from low to high. We rated the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes as low using the GRADE approach.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review provides insufficient information to inform clinical practice. Small sample sizes, poor methodological quality, and lack of data on important outcome measures precluded any meaningful conclusions regarding the efficacy and tolerability of sulthiame as monotherapy in epilepsy. More trials, recruiting larger populations, over longer periods, are needed to determine whether sulthiame has a clinical use.\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 is limited by small sizes of the groups being studied, significant risk of bias, and incomplete data on important outcome measures, as well as by the lack of an English translation of the full-text manuscript of one study."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8289
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has major short- and long-term implications for both the mother and her baby. GDM is defined as a carbohydrate intolerance resulting in hyperglycaemia or any degree of glucose intolerance with onset or first recognition during pregnancy from 24 weeks' gestation onwards and which resolves following the birth of the baby. Rates for GDM can be as high as 25% depending on the population and diagnostic criteria used, and overall rates are increasing globally. There is wide variation internationally in glycaemic treatment target recommendations for women with GDM that are based on consensus rather than high-quality trials.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of different intensities of glycaemic control in pregnant women with GDM on maternal and infant health outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (26 September 2022), and reference lists of the retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs. Trials were eligible for inclusion if women were diagnosed with GDM during pregnancy and the trial compared tighter and less-tight glycaemic targets during management. We defined tighter glycaemic targets as lower numerical glycaemic concentrations, and less-tight glycaemic targets as higher numerical glycaemic concentrations.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods for carrying out data collection, assessing risk of bias, and analysing results. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility for inclusion, evaluated risk of bias, and extracted data for the four included studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for selected outcomes using the GRADE approach. Primary maternal outcomes included hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and subsequent development of type 2 diabetes. Primary infant outcomes included perinatal mortality, large-for-gestational-age, composite of mortality or serious morbidity, and neurosensory disability.\nMain results\nThis was an update of a previous review completed in 2016. We included four RCTs (reporting on 1731 women) that compared a tighter glycaemic control with less-tight glycaemic control in women diagnosed with GDM. Three studies were parallel RCTs, and one study was a stepped-wedged cluster-RCT. The trials took place in Canada, New Zealand, Russia, and the USA. We judged the overall risk of bias to be unclear. Two trials were only published in abstract form. Tight glycaemic targets used in the trials ranged between ≤ 5.0 and 5.1 mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose and ≤ 6.7 and 7.4 mmol/L postprandial. Less-tight targets for glycaemic control used in the included trials ranged between < 5.3 and 5.8 mmol/L for fasting plasma glucose and < 7.8 and 8.0 mmol/L postprandial.\nFor the maternal outcomes, compared with less-tight glycaemic control, the evidence suggests a possible increase in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with tighter glycaemic control (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.69, 2 trials, 1491 women; low certainty evidence); however, the 95% CI is compatible with a wide range of effects that encompass both benefit and harm. Tighter glycaemic control likely results in little to no difference in caesarean section rates (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17, 3 studies, 1662 women; moderate certainty evidence) or induction of labour rates (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.18, 1 study, 1096 women; moderate certainty evidence) compared with less-tight control. No data were reported for the outcomes of subsequent development of type 2 diabetes, perineal trauma, return to pre-pregnancy weight, and postnatal depression.\nFor the infant outcomes, it was difficult to determine if there was a difference in perinatal mortality (RR not estimable, 2 studies, 1499 infants; low certainty evidence), and there was likely no difference in being large-for-gestational-age (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29, 3 studies, 1556 infants; moderate certainty evidence). The evidence suggests a possible reduction in the composite of mortality or serious morbidity with tighter glycaemic control (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.29, 3 trials, 1559 infants; low certainty evidence); however, the 95% CI is compatible with a wide range of effects that encompass both benefit and harm. There is probably little difference between groups in infant hypoglycaemia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.18, 3 studies, 1556 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Tighter glycaemic control may not reduce adiposity in infants of women with GDM compared with less-tight control (mean difference −0.62%, 95% CI −3.23 to 1.99, 1 study, 60 infants; low certainty evidence), but the wide CI suggests significant uncertainty. We found no data for the long-term outcomes of diabetes or neurosensory disability.\nWomen assigned to tighter glycaemic control experienced an increase in the use of pharmacological therapy compared with women assigned to less-tight glycaemic control (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.59, 4 trials, 1718 women). Tighter glycaemic control reducedadherence with treatment compared with less-tight glycaemic control (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.51, 1 trial, 395 women).\nOverall the certainty of evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from low to moderate, downgraded primarily due to risk of bias and imprecision.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review is based on four trials (1731 women) with an overall unclear risk of bias. The trials provided data on most primary outcomes and suggest that tighter glycaemic control may increase the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. The risk of birth of a large-for-gestational-age infant and perinatal mortality may be similar between groups, and tighter glycaemic targets may result in a possible reduction in composite of death or severe infant morbidity. However, the CIs for these outcomes are wide, suggesting both benefit and harm.\nThere remains limited evidence regarding the benefit of different glycaemic targets for women with GDM to minimise adverse effects on maternal and infant health. Glycaemic target recommendations from international professional organisations vary widely and are currently reliant on consensus given the lack of high-certainty evidence.\nFurther high-quality trials are needed, and these should assess both short- and long-term health outcomes for women and their babies; include women's experiences; and assess health services costs in order to confirm the current findings. Two trials are ongoing.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Women with GDM are treated with the aim of controlling high maternal blood sugar levels and reducing the risks of GDM for the mother and the baby. Blood sugar control is monitored by measuring blood sugar concentrations to ensure they are maintained within a predefined level or range. The blood sugar results are usually obtained by the mother using a finger prick to collect a drop of her blood on a test strip, which is inserted into a small machine (a glucometer) that reads the sugar level of the blood on the test strip. The glucometer reading alerts the pregnant woman to her current blood sugar level and is used to guide her treatment, for example how many units of insulin she requires before eating. However, the most effective blood sugar range to aim for and guide treatment in pregnant women with newly diagnosed GDM is currently unclear."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8290
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMaternal complications, including psychological/mental health problems and neonatal morbidity, have commonly been observed in the postpartum period. Home visits by health professionals or lay supporters in the weeks following birth may prevent health problems from becoming chronic, with long-term effects. This is an update of a review last published in 2017.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective of this review is to assess the effects of different home-visiting schedules on maternal and newborn mortality during the early postpartum period. The review focuses on the frequency of home visits (how many home visits in total), the timing (when visits started, e.g. within 48 hours of the birth), duration (when visits ended), intensity (how many visits per week), and different types of home-visiting interventions.\nSearch methods\nFor this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (19 May 2021), and checked reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) (including cluster-, quasi-RCTs and studies available only as abstracts) comparing different home-visiting interventions that enrolled participants in the early postpartum period (up to 42 days after birth) were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies in which women were enrolled and received an intervention during the antenatal period (even if the intervention continued into the postnatal period), and studies recruiting only women from specific high-risk groups (e.g. women with alcohol or drug problems).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 16 randomised trials with data for 12,080 women. The trials were carried out in countries across the world, in both high- and low-resource settings. In low-resource settings, women receiving usual care may have received no additional postnatal care after early hospital discharge.\nThe interventions and controls varied considerably across studies. Trials focused on three broad types of comparisons, as detailed below. In all but four of the included studies, postnatal care at home was delivered by healthcare professionals. The aim of all interventions was broadly to assess the well-being of mothers and babies, and to provide education and support. However, some interventions had more specific aims, such as to encourage breastfeeding, or to provide practical support.\nFor most of our outcomes, only one or two studies provided data, and results were inconsistent overall. All studies had several domains with high or unclear risk of bias.\nMore versus fewer home visits (five studies, 2102 women)\nThe evidence is very uncertain about whether home visits have any effect on maternal and neonatal mortality (very low-certainty evidence). Mean postnatal depression scores as measured with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) may be slightly higher (worse) with more home visits, though the difference in scores was not clinically meaningful (mean difference (MD) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 1.79; two studies, 767 women; low-certainty evidence). Two separate analyses indicated conflicting results for maternal satisfaction (both low-certainty evidence); one indicated that there may be benefit with fewer visits, though the 95% CI just crossed the line of no effect (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.02; two studies, 862 women). However, in another study, the additional support provided by health visitors was associated with increased mean satisfaction scores (MD 14.70, 95% CI 8.43 to 20.97; one study, 280 women; low-certainty evidence). Infant healthcare utilisation may be decreased with more home visits (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.64; four studies, 1365 infants) and exclusive breastfeeding at six weeks may be increased (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.36; three studies, 960 women; low-certainty evidence). Serious neonatal morbidity up to six months was not reported in any trial.\nDifferent models of postnatal care (three studies, 4394 women)\nIn a cluster-RCT comparing usual care with individualised care by midwives, extended up to three months after the birth, there may be little or no difference in neonatal mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.12; one study, 696 infants). The proportion of women with EPDS scores ≥ 13 at four months is probably reduced with individualised care (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.86; one study, 1295 women). One study suggests there may be little to no difference between home visits and telephone screening in neonatal morbidity up to 28 days (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.12; one study, 696 women). In a different study, there was no difference between breastfeeding promotion and routine visits in exclusive breastfeeding rates at six months (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.69; one study, 656 women).\nHome versus facility-based postnatal care (eight studies, 5179 women)\nThe evidence suggests there may be little to no difference in postnatal depression rates at 42 days postpartum and also as measured on an EPDS scale at 60 days. Maternal satisfaction with postnatal care may be better with home visits (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.62; three studies, 2368 women). There may be little to no difference in infant emergency health care visits or infant hospital readmissions (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38; three studies, 3257 women) or in exclusive breastfeeding at two weeks (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; 1 study, 513 women).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence is very uncertain about the effect of home visits on maternal and neonatal mortality. Individualised care as part of a package of home visits probably improves depression scores at four months and increasing the frequency of home visits may improve exclusive breastfeeding rates and infant healthcare utilisation. Maternal satisfaction may also be better with home visits compared to hospital check-ups. Overall, the certainty of evidence was found to be low and findings were not consistent among studies and comparisons. Further well designed RCTs evaluating this complex intervention will be required to formulate the optimal package.\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 included 16 randomised trials with data for 12,080 women. Some trials focused on physical checks of the mother and newborn, while others provided support for breastfeeding, and one included the provision of practical support with housework and childcare. They were carried out in both high-resource countries and low-resource settings where women receiving usual care may not have received additional postnatal care after early hospital discharge.\nThe trials focused on three broad types of comparisons: schedules involving more versus fewer postnatal home visits (five studies), schedules involving different models of care (three studies), and home versus facility postnatal check-ups (eight studies). In all but four of the included studies, postnatal care at home was delivered by healthcare professionals. For most of our outcomes, only one or two studies provided data. Overall, our results were inconsistent.\nThe evidence was very uncertain about whether home visits reduced newborn deaths or serious health problems with the mother. Women's physical and psychological health were not improved with more intensive schedules of home visits although more individualised care improved women's mental health in one study and maternal satisfaction was slightly better in two studies. Overall, babies may be less likely to have additional medical care if their mothers received more postnatal home visits. More home visits may have encouraged more women to exclusively breastfeed their babies and women to be more satisfied with their postnatal care. The different outcomes reported in different studies, how the outcomes were measured, and the considerable variation in the interventions and control conditions across studies were limitations of this review. The certainty of the evidence was generally found to be low or very low according to the GRADE criteria."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8291
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nFibrates are effective for modifying atherogenic dyslipidaemia, and particularly for lowering serum triglycerides. However, evidence that fibrates reduce mortality and morbidity associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), or overall mortality and morbidity, in the primary prevention of CVD is lacking.\nObjectives\nThis Cochrane Review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits and harms of fibrates versus placebo or usual care or fibrates plus other lipid-modifying drugs versus other lipid-modifying drugs alone for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and Web of Science (all from inception to 19 May 2016). We searched four clinical trial registers (last searched on 3 August 2016) with the help of an experienced professional librarian. We searched the databases to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical effects of fibrate therapy in the primary prevention of CVD events. We did not impose any language restrictions.\nSelection criteria\nWe aimed to include all RCTs comparing the effects of fibrate monotherapy versus placebo or usual care, or fibrates plus other lipid-modifying drugs versus other lipid-modifying drugs alone. Included studies had a follow-up of at least six months for the primary prevention of CVD events. We excluded trials with clofibrate, because it was withdrawn from the market in 2002.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for potential study inclusion. Two review authors independently retrieved the full-text papers and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for aggregate data on primary and secondary outcomes. We tested for heterogeneity with the Cochrane Q-test and used the I2 statistic to measure inconsistency of treatment effects across studies. Using the GRADE approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and used the GRADE profiler software (GRADEpro GDT) to import data from Review Manager 5 to create 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe identified six eligible trials including 16,135 individuals. The mean age of trial populations varied across trials; between 47.3 and 62.3 years. Four trials included individuals with diabetes mellitus type 2 only. The mean treatment duration and follow-up of participants across trials was 4.8 years. We judged the risks of selection and performance bias to be low; risks of detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias were unclear. Reporting of adverse effects by included trials was very limited; that is why we used discontinuation of therapy due to adverse effects as a proxy for adverse effects. Patients treated with fibrates had a reduced risk for the combined primary outcome of CVD death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke compared to patients on placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.96; participants = 16,135; studies = 6; moderate-quality of evidence). For secondary outcomes we found RRs for fibrate therapy compared with placebo of 0.79 for combined coronary heart disease death or non-fatal myocardial infarction (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; participants = 16,135; studies = 6; moderate-quality of evidence); 1.01 for overall mortality (95% CI 0.81 to 1.26; participants = 8471; studies = 5; low-quality of evidence); 1.01 for non-CVD mortality (95% CI 0.76 to 1.35; participants = 8471; studies = 5; low-quality of evidence); and 1.38 for discontinuation of therapy due to adverse effects (95% CI 0.71 to 2.68; participants = 4805; studies = 3; I2 = 74%; very low-quality of evidence). Data on quality of life were not available from any trial. Trials that evaluated fibrates in the background of statins (2 studies) showed no benefits in preventing cardiovascular events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nModerate-quality evidence suggests that fibrates lower the risk for cardiovascular and coronary events in primary prevention, but the absolute treatment effects in the primary prevention setting are modest (absolute risk reductions < 1%). There is low-quality evidence that fibrates have no effect on overall or non-CVD mortality. Very low-quality evidence suggests that fibrates are not associated with increased risk for 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": "Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death, illness, disability, and reduced quality of life in industrialised countries. One of the major risk factors for cardiovascular disease is elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C, 'bad' cholesterol). In addition, persons with elevated serum triglycerides and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C, 'good' cholesterol) are also at increased risk for cardiovascular disease events such as heart attacks or strokes. Fibrates lower serum triglycerides, modestly raise HDL-C, and modestly lower LDL-C. Therefore, long-term therapy with fibrates may help prevent cardiovascular disease events, in particular in combination with statins, for which it has been shown that they substantially lower LDL-C and reduce the risk of heart attack, stroke, and overall mortality."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8292
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSymptomatic peripheral arterial disease (PAD) has several treatment options, including angioplasty, stenting, exercise therapy, and bypass surgery. Atherectomy is an alternative procedure, in which atheroma is cut or ground away within the artery. This is the first update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of atherectomy for peripheral arterial disease compared to other established treatments.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 12 August 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials that compared atherectomy with other established treatments. All participants had symptomatic PAD with either claudication or critical limb ischaemia and evidence of lower limb arterial disease.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors screened studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Outcomes of interest were: primary patency (at six and 12 months), all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, initial technical failure rates, target vessel revascularisation rates (TVR; at six and 12 months); and complications.\nMain results\nWe included seven studies, with a total of 527 participants and 581 treated lesions. We found two comparisons: atherectomy versus balloon angioplasty (BA) and atherectomy versus BA with primary stenting. No studies compared atherectomy with bypass surgery. Overall, the evidence from this review was of very low certainty, due to a high risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency.\nSix studies (372 participants, 427 treated lesions) compared atherectomy versus BA. We found no clear difference between atherectomy and BA for the primary outcomes: six-month primary patency rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.20; 3 studies, 186 participants; very low-certainty evidence); 12-month primary patency rates (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.84; 2 studies, 149 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or mortality rates (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.66, 3 studies, 210 participants, very low-certainty evidence). One study reported cardiac failure and acute coronary syndrome as causes of death at 24 months but it was unclear which arm the participants belonged to, and one study reported no cardiovascular events.\nThere was no clear difference when examining: initial technical failure rates (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.08; 6 studies, 425 treated vessels; very low-certainty evidence), six-month TVR (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.06 to 4.42; 2 studies, 136 treated vessels; very low-certainty evidence) or 12-month TVR (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.42; 3 studies, 176 treated vessels; very low-certainty evidence). All six studies reported complication rates (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.68; 6 studies, 387 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and embolisation events (RR 2.51, 95% CI 0.64 to 9.80; 6 studies, 387 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Atherectomy may be less likely to cause dissection (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; 4 studies, 290 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and may be associated with a reduction in bailout stenting (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.74; 4 studies, 315 treated vessels; very low-certainty evidence). Four studies reported amputation rates, with only one amputation event recorded in a BA participant. We used subgroup analysis to compare the effect of plain balloons/stents and drug-eluting balloons/stents, but did not detect any differences between the subgroups.\nOne study (155 participants, 155 treated lesions) compared atherectomy versus BA and primary stenting, so comparison was extremely limited and subject to imprecision. This study did not report primary patency. The study reported one death (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.23; 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and three complication events (RR 7.04, 95% CI 0.80 to 62.23; 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence) in a very small data set, making conclusions unreliable. We found no clear difference between the treatment arms in cardiovascular events (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.23; 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This study found no initial technical failure events, and TVR rates at six and 24 months showed little difference between treatment arms (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.95 to 5.46; 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence and RR 2.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 4.37; 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence, respectively).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review update shows that the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of atherectomy on patency, mortality and cardiovascular event rates compared to plain balloon angioplasty, with or without stenting. We detected no clear differences in initial technical failure rates or TVR, but there may be reduced dissection and bailout stenting after atherectomy although this is uncertain. Included studies were small, heterogenous and at high risk of bias. Larger studies powered to detect clinically meaningful, patient-centred outcomes are required.\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, our certainty in the evidence is very low, which means we do not have confidence that our results show the true effect of the treatments. We downgraded our certainty in the evidence because the studies were at high risk of bias (lack of blinding of participants or assessors, several outcomes were not reported and a number of the participants did not complete the studies); the trials were all small; and their results were inconsistent."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8293
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLow back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering worldwide. Those with persistent disabling symptoms also contribute to substantial costs to society via healthcare expenditure and reduced work productivity. While there are many treatment options, none are universally endorsed. The idea that chronic LBP is a condition best understood with reference to an interaction of physical, psychological and social influences, the 'biopsychosocial model', has received increasing acceptance. This has led to the development of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) programs that target factors from the different domains, administered by healthcare professionals from different backgrounds.\nObjectives\nTo review the evidence on the effectiveness of MBR for patients with chronic LBP. The focus was on comparisons with usual care and with physical treatments measuring outcomes of pain, disability and work status, particularly in the long term.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases in January and March 2014 together with carrying out handsearches of the reference lists of included and related studies, forward citation tracking of included studies and screening of studies excluded in the previous version of this review.\nSelection criteria\nAll studies identified in the searches were screened independently by two review authors; disagreements regarding inclusion were resolved by consensus. The inclusion criteria were published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included adults with non-specific LBP of longer than 12 weeks duration; the index intervention targeted at least two of physical, psychological and social or work-related factors; and the index intervention was delivered by clinicians from at least two different professional backgrounds.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted and checked information to describe the included studies, assessed risk of bias and performed the analyses. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to describe the methodological quality. The primary outcomes were pain, disability and work status, divided into the short, medium and long term. Secondary outcomes were psychological functioning (for example depression, anxiety, catastrophising), healthcare service utilisation, quality of life and adverse events. We categorised the control interventions as usual care, physical treatment, surgery, or wait list for surgery in separate meta-analyses. The first two comparisons formed our primary focus. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE method. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of the methodological quality, and subgroup analyses to investigate the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity.\nMain results\nFrom 6168 studies identified in the searches, 41 RCTs with a total of 6858 participants were included. Methodological quality ratings ranged from 1 to 9 out 12, and 13 of the 41 included studies were assessed as low risk of bias. Pooled estimates from 16 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR is more effective than usual care in reducing pain and disability, with standardised mean differences (SMDs) in the long term of 0.21 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.37) and 0.23 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.4) respectively. The range across all time points equated to approximately 0.5 to 1.4 units on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale for pain and 1.4 to 2.5 points on the Roland Morris disability scale (0 to 24). There was moderate to low quality evidence of no difference on work outcomes (odds ratio (OR) at long term 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.47). Pooled estimates from 19 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR was more effective than physical treatment for pain and disability with SMDs in the long term of 0.51 (95% CI -0.01 to 1.04) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.19) respectively. Across all time points this translated to approximately 0.6 to 1.2 units on the pain scale and 1.2 to 4.0 points on the Roland Morris scale. There was moderate to low quality evidence of an effect on work outcomes (OR at long term 1.87, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.53). There was insufficient evidence to assess whether MBR interventions were associated with more adverse events than usual care or physical interventions.\nSensitivity analyses did not suggest that the pooled estimates were unduly influenced by the results from low quality studies. Subgroup analyses were inconclusive regarding the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPatients with chronic LBP receiving MBR are likely to experience less pain and disability than those receiving usual care or a physical treatment. MBR also has a positive influence on work status compared to physical treatment. Effects are of a modest magnitude and should be balanced against the time and resource requirements of MBR programs. More intensive interventions were not responsible for effects that were substantially different to those of less intensive interventions. While we were not able to determine if symptom intensity at presentation influenced the likelihood of success, it seems appropriate that only those people with indicators of significant psychosocial impact are referred to MBR.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Is treatment involving a team of therapists from several different clinical professions helpful for people with long-term back pain?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8294
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAttention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children is associated with hyperactivity and impulsivity, attention problems, and difficulties with social interactions. Pharmacological treatment may alleviate the symptoms of ADHD but this rarely solves difficulties with social interactions. Children with ADHD may benefit from interventions designed to improve their social skills. We examined the benefits and harms of social skills training on social skills, emotional competencies, general behaviour, ADHD symptoms, performance in school of children with ADHD, and adverse events.\nObjectives\nTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of social skills training in children and adolescents with ADHD.\nSearch methods\nIn July 2018, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 4 other databases and two trials registers.We also searched online conference abstracts, and contacted experts in the field for information about unpublished or ongoing randomised clinical trials. We did not limit our searches by language, year of publication, or type or status of publication, and we sought translation of the relevant sections of non-English language articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised clinical trials investigating social skills training versus either no intervention or waiting-list control, with or without pharmacological treatment of both comparison groups of children and adolescents with ADHD.\nData collection and analysis\nWe conducted the review in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention. We performed the analyses using Review Manager 5 software and Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed bias according to domains for systematic errors. We assessed the certainty of the evidence with the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 25 randomised clinical trials described in 45 reports. The trials included a total of 2690 participants aged between five and 17 years. In 17 trials, participants were also diagnosed with various comorbidities.\nThe social skills interventions were described as: 1) social skills training, 2) cognitive behavioural therapy, 3) multimodal behavioural/psychosocial therapy, 4) child life and attention skills treatment, 5) life skills training, 6) the \"challenging horizon programme\", 7) verbal self-instruction, 8) meta-cognitive training, 9) behavioural therapy, 10) behavioural and social skills treatment, and 11) psychosocial treatment. The control interventions were no intervention or waiting list.\nThe duration of the interventions ranged from five weeks to two years. We considered the content of the social skills interventions to be comparable and based on a cognitive-behavioural model. Most of the trials compared child social skills training or parent training combined with medication versus medication alone. Some of the experimental interventions also included teacher consultations.\nMore than half of the trials were at high risk of bias for generation of the allocation sequence and allocation concealment. No trial reported on blinding of participants and personnel. Most of the trials did not report on differences between groups in medication for comorbid disorders. We used all eligible trials in the meta-analyses, but downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low or very low.\nWe found no clinically relevant treatment effect of social skills interventions on the primary outcome measures: teacher-rated social skills at end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.22; 11 trials, 1271 participants; I2 = 0%; P = 0.05); teacher-rated emotional competencies at end of treatment (SMD −0.02, 95% CI −0.72 to 0.68; two trials, 129 participants; I2 = 74%; P = 0.96); or on teacher-rated general behaviour (SMD −0.06 (negative value better), 95% CI −0.19 to 0.06; eight trials, 1002 participants; I2 = 0%; P = 0.33). The effect on the primary outcome, teacher-rated social skills at end of treatment, corresponds to a MD of 1.22 points on the social skills rating system (SSRS) scale (95% CI 0.09 to 2.36). The minimal clinical relevant difference (10%) on the SSRS is 10.0 points (range 0 to 102 points on SSRS).\nWe found evidence in favour of social skills training on teacher-rated core ADHD symptoms at end of treatment for all eligible trials (SMD −0.26, 95% CI −0.47 to −0.05; 14 trials, 1379 participants; I2= 69%; P = 0.02), but the finding is questionable due to lack of support from sensitivity analyses, high risk of bias, lack of clinical significance, high heterogeneity, and low certainty.\nThe studies did not report any serious or non-serious adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe review suggests that there is little evidence to support or refute social skills training for children and adolescents with ADHD. We may need more trials that are at low risk of bias and a sufficient number of participants to determine the efficacy of social skills training versus no training for ADHD. The evidence base regarding adolescents is especially weak.\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 25 randomised clinical trials (studies where participants with ADHD were randomly assigned to one of two or more groups) involving a total of 2690 participants. The trials lasted between five weeks and two years. The social skills training generally focused on teaching the children how to 'read' the subtle cues in social interaction, such as learning to wait for their turn, knowing when to shift topics during a conversation, and being able to recognise the emotional expressions of others. Social skills training often consists of role play, exercises and games, as well as homework. Children in the control groups either received no intervention or were placed on a waiting list."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8295
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTraditionally, amalgam has been used for filling cavities in posterior teeth, and it continues to be the restorative material of choice in some low- and middle-income countries due to its effectiveness and relatively low cost. However, there are concerns over the use of amalgam restorations (fillings) with regard to mercury release in the body and the environmental impact of mercury disposal. Dental composite resin materials are an aesthetic alternative to amalgam, and their mechanical properties have developed sufficiently to make them suitable for restoring posterior teeth. Nevertheless, composite resin materials may have potential for toxicity to human health and the environment.\nThe United Nations Environment Programme has established the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which is an international treaty that aims \"to protect the [sic] human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds\". It entered into force in August 2017, and as of February 2021 had been ratified by 127 governments. Ratification involves committing to the adoption of at least two of nine proposed measures to phase down the use of mercury, including amalgam in dentistry. In light of this, we have updated a review originally published in 2014, expanding the scope of the review by undertaking an additional search for harms outcomes. Our review synthesises the results of studies that evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of amalgam versus composite resin restorations, and evaluates the level of certainty we can have in that evidence.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effects (i.e. efficacy and safety) of direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings.\nSearch methods\nAn information specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 16 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies\nSelection criteria\nTo assess efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dental composite resin with amalgam restorations in permanent posterior teeth that assessed restoration failure or survival at follow-up of at least three years.\nTo assess safety, we sought non-randomised studies in addition to RCTs that directly compared composite resin and amalgam restorative materials and measured toxicity, sensitivity, allergy, or injury.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included a total of eight studies in this updated review, all of which were RCTs. Two studies used a parallel-group design, and six used a split-mouth design. We judged all of the included studies to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and issues related to unit of analysis. We identified one new trial since the previous version of this review (2014), as well as eight additional papers that assessed safety, all of which related to the two parallel-group studies that were already included in the review.\nFor our primary meta-analyses, we combined data from the two parallel-group trials, which involved 1645 composite restorations and 1365 amalgam restorations in 921 children. We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations had almost double the risk of failure compared to amalgam restorations (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.35; P < 0.001), and were at much higher risk of secondary caries (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.74; P < 0.001). We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations were not more likely to result in restoration fracture (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.64; P = 0.66).\nSix trials used a split-mouth design. We considered these studies separately, as their reliability was compromised due to poor reporting, unit of analysis errors, and variability in methods and findings. Subgroup analysis showed that the findings were consistent with the results of the parallel-group studies.\nThree trials investigated possible harms of dental restorations. Higher urinary mercury levels were reported amongst children with amalgam restorations in two trials, but the levels were lower than what is known to be toxic. Some differences between amalgam and composite resin groups were observed on certain measures of renal, neuropsychological, and psychosocial function, physical development, and postoperative sensitivity; however, no consistent or clinically important harms were found. We considered that the vast number of comparisons made false-positive results likely. There was no evidence of differences between the amalgam and composite resin groups in neurological symptoms, immune function, and urinary porphyrin excretion. The evidence is of very low certainty, with most harms outcomes reported in only one trial.\nAuthors' conclusions\nLow-certainty evidence suggests that composite resin restorations may have almost double the failure rate of amalgam restorations. The risk of restoration fracture does not seem to be higher with composite resin restorations, but there is a much higher risk of developing secondary caries. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be no clinically important differences in the safety profile of amalgam compared with composite resin dental restorations.\nThis review supports the utility of amalgam restorations, and the results may be particularly useful in parts of the world where amalgam is still the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries. Of note, however, is that composite resin materials have undergone important improvements in the years since the trials informing the primary analyses for this review were conducted. The global phase-down of dental amalgam via the Minamata Convention on Mercury is an important consideration when deciding between amalgam and composite resin dental materials. The choice of which dental material to use will depend on shared decision-making between dental providers and patients in the clinic setting, and local directives and protocols.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Our main analysis focused on the two parallel-group studies that treated 921 children (aged 6 to 12 years) who had their teeth restored with amalgam (1365) or composite resin (1645) fillings. We found that composite resin fillings were significantly more likely to fail than amalgam fillings when used to fill cavities in permanent teeth at the back of the mouth. Tooth decay after a filling was placed (known as 'secondary caries') occurred more frequently with composite resin compared to amalgam fillings. There was no suggestion of a difference between the materials in the likelihood of filling breaking.\nSix of the trials used a 'split-mouth' design, which means that each participant had both types of fillings in different teeth. These studies were less reliable, as they did not explain fully how they conducted the studies, and it was unclear how many people received the fillings. We analysed the split-mouth studies separately from the parallel-group studies, and undertook a statistical approach known as 'subgroup analysis'. This showed that the findings of these studies were compatible with the results from the two parallel-group studies.\nThree studies reported negative side effects. Although we found that there were some possible side effects with each material used, this information is unreliable because the study authors carried out so many analyses that 'false positive' results were likely to be found. Overall, it seems that the materials may differ in terms of how safe they are, but the level of the differences identified in the studies may not be important.\nTo summarise, we found that composite resin fillings may be almost twice as likely to fail compared with amalgam fillings when used for filling permanent teeth at the back of the mouth. Composite fillings do not seem more likely to break, but do seem more likely than amalgam fillings to develop further tooth decay. The current evidence suggests there are no important differences in the safety of amalgam compared with composite resin dental fillings."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8296
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPersistent cough is a common clinical problem. Despite thorough investigation and empirical management, a considerable proportion of those people with subacute and chronic cough have unexplained cough, for which treatment options are limited. While current guidelines recommend inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), the research evidence for this intervention is conflicting.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of ICS for subacute and chronic cough in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov in December 2012 and conducted handsearches.\nSelection criteria\nTwo authors independently assessed all potentially relevant trials. All published and unpublished randomised comparisons of ICS versus placebo in adults with subacute or chronic cough were included. Participants with known chronic respiratory disease and asthma were excluded. Studies of cough-variant asthma and eosinophilic bronchitis were eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently extracted data pertaining to pre-defined outcomes. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with clinical cure or significant improvement (over 70% reduction in cough severity measure) at follow up (clinical success). The secondary outcomes included proportion of participants with clinical cure or over 50% reduction in cough severity measure at follow up, mean change in cough severity measures, complications of cough, biomarkers of inflammation and adverse effects. We requested additional data from study authors.\nMain results\nEight primary studies, including 570 participants, were included. The overall methodological quality of studies was good. Significant clinical heterogeneity resulting from differences in participants and interventions, as well as variation in outcome measures, limited the validity of comparisons between studies for most outcomes. Data for the primary outcome of clinical cure or significant (> 70%) improvement were available for only three studies, which were too heterogeneous to pool. Similarly, heterogeneity in study characteristics limited the validity of meta-analysis for the secondary outcomes of proportion of participants with clinical cure or over 50% reduction in cough severity measure and clinical cure. One parallel group trial of chronic cough which identified a significant treatment effect contributed the majority of statistical heterogeneity for these outcomes. While ICS treatment resulted in a mean decrease in cough score of 0.34 standard deviations (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.56 to -0.13; 346 participants), the quality of evidence was low. Heterogeneity also prevented meta-analysis for the outcome of mean change in visual analogue scale score. Meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of pulmonary function, complications of cough or biomarkers of inflammation due to insufficient data. There was moderate quality evidence that treatment with ICS did not significantly increase the odds of experiencing an adverse event (OR 1.67; 95% CI 0.92 to 3.04).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe studies were highly heterogeneous and results were inconsistent. Heterogeneity in study design needs to be addressed in future research in order to test the efficacy of this intervention. International cough guidelines recommend that a trial of ICS should only be considered in patients after thorough evaluation including chest X-ray and consideration of spirometry and other appropriate investigations.\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 wanted to find out if taking inhaled steroids in adults with cough lasting three weeks or longer were beneficial.\nWe looked at evidence from clinical trials. We analysed the effects of ICS compared with placebo on cough severity, lung function, complications of cough and airway inflammation, as well as the safety of this treatment."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8298
|
[
{
"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: \"Conclusion\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The review could not identify enough high-quality evidence on the benefits and safety of yoga in stroke rehabilitation. More good-quality research studies are needed to be sure that yoga has benefits for stroke survivors."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8299
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTo successfully initiate and maintain breastfeeding for a longer duration, the World Health Organization's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding recommends total avoidance of artificial teats or pacifiers for breastfeeding infants. Concerns have been raised that offering the pacifier instead of the breast to calm the infant may lead to less frequent episodes of breastfeeding and as a consequence may reduce breast-milk production and shorten duration of breastfeeding.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effect of restricted versus unrestricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns whose mothers have initiated breastfeeding and intend to exclusively breastfeed, on the duration of breastfeeding, other breastfeeding outcomes and infant health.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing restricted versus unrestricted pacifier use in healthy full-term newborns who have initiated breastfeeding.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe found three trials (involving 1915 babies) for inclusion in the review, but have included only two trials (involving 1302 healthy full-term breastfeeding infants) in the analysis. Meta-analysis of the two combined studies showed that pacifier use in healthy breastfeeding infants had no significant effect on the proportion of infants exclusively breastfed at three months (risk ratio (RR) 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.07, two studies, 1228 infants), and at four months of age (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.09, one study, 970 infants, moderate-quality evidence), and also had no effect on the proportion of infants partially breastfed at three months (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02, two studies, 1228 infants), and at four months of age (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02, one study, 970 infants). None of the included trials reported data on the other primary outcomes, i.e. duration of partial or exclusive breastfeeding, or secondary outcomes: breastfeeding difficulties (mastitis, cracked nipples, breast engorgement); infant's health (dental malocclusion, otitis media, oral candidiasis; sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)); maternal satisfaction and level of confidence in parenting. One study reported that avoidance of pacifiers had no effect on cry/fuss behavior at ages four, six, or nine weeks and also reported no effect on the risk of weaning before age three months, however the data were incomplete and so could not be included for analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPacifier use in healthy term breastfeeding infants, started from birth or after lactation is established, did not significantly affect the prevalence or duration of exclusive and partial breastfeeding up to four months of age. Evidence to assess the short-term breastfeeding difficulties faced by mothers and long-term effect of pacifiers on infants' health is lacking.\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 updated the search on 30 June 2016. We identified three studies, with a total of 1915 babies. One study could not be included in the analysis and so findings are based on two studies involving 1302 infants. The mothers in the studies were motivated to breastfeed recruited immediately after birth and at two weeks of life, respectively. We found that unrestricted use of a pacifier did not affect the proportion of infants exclusive or partial breastfeeding at three and four months. The studies were remarkably consistent. We judged this to be moderate-quality evidence. There was no information on the effect of pacifier use on any breastfeeding difficulties experienced by the mothers, maternal satisfaction, infant crying and fussing and infant problems such as otitis media and dental malocclusion."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8300
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSurgery has been used as part of breast cancer treatment for centuries; however any surgical procedure has the potential risk of infection. Infection rates for surgical treatment of breast cancer are documented at between 3% and 15%, higher than average for a clean surgical procedure. Pre- and perioperative antibiotics have been found to be useful in lowering infection rates in other surgical groups, yet there is no consensus on the use of prophylactic antibiotics for breast cancer surgery. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of prophylactic (pre- or perioperative) antibiotics on the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) after breast cancer surgery.\nSearch methods\nFor this fourth update, in August 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials of pre- and perioperative antibiotics for patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer. Primary outcomes were rates of surgical site infection (SSI) and adverse reactions.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently examined the title and abstracts of all studies identified by the search strategy, then assessed study quality and extracted data from those that met the inclusion criteria. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nA total of 11 randomised controlled trials (2867 participants) were included in the review. No new studies were identified in this update. All studies included breast cancer patients and were based in the hospital setting. Ten studies evaluated preoperative antibiotic compared with no antibiotic or placebo. One study evaluated perioperative antibiotic compared with placebo or no antibiotic. Pooling of the results demonstrated that prophylactic antibiotics administered preoperatively probably reduce the incidence of SSI for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery without reconstruction (pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.85; moderate certainty evidence). Anticipated absolute effects were calculated for the outcome incidence of SSI; 105 per 1000 for the none or placebo group and 71 per 1000 (95% CI 56 to 89) for the preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis group. Analysis of the single study comparing perioperative antibiotic with no antibiotic was inconclusive for incidence of SSI (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.95; very low certainty evidence). No studies presented separate data for patients who underwent reconstructive surgery at the time of removal of the breast tumour.\nSecondary outcomes were not consistently included in the studies investigating preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. It is very uncertain whether there is a difference in incidence of adverse events between the treatment and no treatment or placebo groups (10 studies, 2818 participants); very low certainty evidence downgraded one level for serious risk of bias, one level for serious inconsistency and one level for serious imprecision. It is unclear whether there is a difference in time to onset of infection between the treatment and no treatment or placebo groups (4 studies, 1450 participants); low certainty evidence downgraded one level for serious risk of bias and one level for serious inconsistency. It is unclear whether there is a difference in rates of readmission to hospital between the treatment and placebo groups (3 studies, 784 participants); low certainty evidence downgraded one level for serious inconsistency and one level for serious risk of bias. It is unclear whether there is a difference in cost of care between the treatment and no treatment or placebo groups (2 studies, 510 participants); low certainty evidence downgraded one level for serious risk of bias and one level for serious inconsistency. No analysable secondary outcome data were reported for the single study evaluating perioperative antibiotics.\nAuthors' conclusions\nProphylactic antibiotics administered preoperatively probably reduce the risk of SSI in patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer. However, it is very uncertain whether there is an effect on incidence of adverse events. Furthermore, the effects on time to onset of infection, readmission to hospital and cost of care remain unclear. Further studies are required to establish the best protocols for clinical practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was the aim of this review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The aim of this review was to determine whether giving people antibiotics before or during an operation is effective for preventing surgical site infection (SSI) following breast cancer surgery. Researchers from Cochrane collected and analysed all relevant studies (randomised controlled trials) to answer this question and found 11 relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials are medical studies where people are chosen at random to receive different treatments. This type of trial provides the most reliable health evidence."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8301
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nLiver transplantation is considered the definitive treatment for people with liver failure. As part of post-liver transplantation management, immunosuppression (suppressing the host immunity) is given to prevent graft rejections. Immunosuppressive drugs can be classified into those that are used for a short period during the beginning phase of immunosuppression (induction immunosuppression) and those that are used over the entire lifetime of the individual (maintenance immunosuppression), because it is widely believed that graft rejections are more common during the first few months after liver transplantation. Some drugs such as glucocorticosteroids may be used for both induction and maintenance immunosuppression because of their multiple modalities of action. There is considerable uncertainty as to whether induction immunosuppression is necessary and if so, the relative efficacy of different immunosuppressive agents.\nObjectives\nTo assess the comparative benefits and harms of different induction immunosuppressive regimens in adults undergoing liver transplantation through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the different induction immunosuppressive regimens according to their safety and efficacy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and trials registers until July 2019 to identify randomised clinical trials in adults undergoing liver transplantation.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or status) in adults undergoing liver transplantation. We excluded randomised clinical trials in which participants had multivisceral transplantation and those who already had graft rejections.\nData collection and analysis\nWe performed a network meta-analysis with OpenBUGS using Bayesian methods and calculated the odds ratio (OR), rate ratio, and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) based on an available case analysis, according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Decision Support Unit guidance.\nMain results\nWe included a total of 25 trials (3271 participants; 8 treatments) in the review. Twenty-three trials (3017 participants) were included in one or more outcomes in the review. The trials that provided the information included people undergoing primary liver transplantation for various indications and excluded those with HIV and those with renal impairment. The follow-up in the trials ranged from three to 76 months, with a median follow-up of 12 months among trials. All except one trial were at high risk of bias, and the overall certainty of evidence was very low. Overall, approximately 7.4% of people who received the standard regimen of glucocorticosteroid induction died and 12.2% developed graft failure.\nAll-cause mortality and graft failure was lower with basiliximab compared with glucocorticosteroid induction: all-cause mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CrI 0.31 to 0.93; network estimate, based on 2 direct comparison trials (131 participants; low-certainty evidence)); and graft failure (HR 0.44, 95% CrI 0.28 to 0.70; direct estimate, based on 1 trial (47 participants; low-certainty evidence)). There was no evidence of differences in all-cause mortality and graft failure between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence).\nThere was also no evidence of differences in serious adverse events (proportion), serious adverse events (number), renal failure, any adverse events (proportion), any adverse events (number), liver retransplantation, graft rejections (any), or graft rejections (requiring treatment) between other induction immunosuppressants and glucocorticosteroids in either the direct comparison or the network meta-analysis (very low-certainty evidence). However, because of the wide CrIs, clinically important differences in these outcomes cannot be ruled out. None of the studies reported health-related quality of life.\nFunding: the source of funding for 14 trials was drug companies who would benefit from the results of the study; two trials were funded by neutral organisations who have no vested interests in the results of the study; and the source of funding for the remaining nine trials was unclear.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on low-certainty evidence, basiliximab induction may decrease mortality and graft failure compared to glucocorticosteroids induction in people undergoing liver transplantation. However, there is considerable uncertainty about this finding because this information is based on small trials at high risk of bias. The evidence is uncertain about the effects of different induction immunosuppressants on other clinical outcomes, including graft rejections.\nFuture randomised clinical trials should be adequately powered, employ blinding, avoid post-randomisation dropouts (or perform intention-to-treat analysis), and use clinically important outcomes such as mortality, graft failure, and health-related quality of life.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is the aim of this Cochrane Review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Liver transplantation is the main treatment option for people with severe advanced liver disease. When organs or tissues are transplanted from one person (organ donor) to another (organ recipient), the body of the organ recipient identifies the donor organ (or graft) as a foreign body and initiates a response against it in a way similar to the natural body defence mechanism against infections (immune response). This can sometimes lead to rejection or failure of the donor liver, which can result in the death of the organ recipient. Various medical interventions (immunosuppressive regimen) are used either alone or in combination to prevent rejection. The combination of interventions used in the first few months after liver transplantation (induction immunosuppressive regimen) is often different from the combination used for the rest of the patient's life (maintenance immunosuppression). It is unclear which induction immunosuppressive regimen after liver transplantation is the most effective.\nThe review authors collected and analysed all relevant research studies to answer this question and found 25 randomised clinical trials (studies in which participants are randomly assigned to one of two groups). During analysis of data, authors used standard Cochrane methods, which allow comparison of only two treatments at a time. Authors also used advanced techniques that allow comparison of multiple treatments simultaneously (usually referred to as 'network (or indirect) meta-analysis')."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8302
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStatins are lipid-lowering agents with pleiotropic actions. Experts have proposed that in addition to improving the dyslipidaemia associated with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), statins may also exert other beneficial metabolic and endocrine effects, such as reducing testosterone levels. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of statin therapy in women with PCOS who are not actively trying to conceive.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHLs, and four ongoing trials registers on 7 November 2022. We also handsearched relevant conference proceedings and the reference lists of relevant trials for any additional studies, and we contacted experts in the field for any further ongoing studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of statin therapy in women with PCOS not actively trying to conceive. Eligible comparisons were statin versus placebo or no treatment, statin plus another agent versus the other agent alone, and statin versus another agent. We performed statistical analysis using Review Manager 5, and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methods.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology. Our primary outcomes were resumption of menstrual regularity and resumption of spontaneous ovulation. Our secondary outcomes were clinical and physiological measures including hirsutism, acne severity, testosterone levels, and adverse events.\nMain results\nSix RCTs fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. They included 396 women with PCOS who received six weeks, three months, or six months of treatment; 374 women completed the studies. Three studies evaluated the effects of simvastatin and three studies evaluated the effects of atorvastatin. We summarised the results of the studies under the following comparisons.\nStatins versus placebo (3 RCTs)\nOne trial measured resumption of menstrual regularity as menstrual cycle length in days. We are uncertain if statins compared with placebo shorten the mean length of the menstrual cycle (mean difference (MD) −2.00 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) −24.86 to 20.86; 37 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported resumption of spontaneous ovulation, improvement in hirsutism, or improvement in acne.\nWe are uncertain if statins compared with placebo reduce testosterone levels after six weeks (MD 0.06, 95% CI −0.72 to 0.84; 1 RCT, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence), after 3 months (MD −0.53, 95% CI −1.61 to 0.54; 2 RCTs, 64 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or after 6 months (MD 0.10, 95% CI −0.43 to 0.63; 1 RCT, 28 participants; very low-certainty evidence)\nTwo studies recorded adverse events, and neither reported significant differences between the groups.\nStatins plus metformin versus metformin alone (1 RCT)\nThe single RCT included in this comparison measured resumption of menstrual regularity as the number of spontaneous menses per six months. We are uncertain if statins plus metformin compared with metformin improves resumption of menstrual regularity (MD 0.60 menses, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.12; 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report resumption of spontaneous ovulation.\nWe are uncertain if statins plus metformin compared with metformin alone improves hirsutism measured using the Ferriman-Gallwey score (MD −0.16, 95% CI −0.91 to 0.59; 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence), acne severity measured on a scale of 0 to 3 (MD −0.31, 95% CI −0.67 to 0.05; 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or testosterone levels (MD −0.03, 95% CI −0.37 to 0.31; 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported that no significant adverse events occurred.\nStatins plus oral contraceptive pill versus oral contraceptive pill alone (1 RCT)\nThe single RCT included in this comparison did not report resumption of menstrual regularity or spontaneous ovulation. We are uncertain if statins plus the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) improves hirsutism compared with OCP alone (MD −0.12, 95% CI −0.41 to 0.17; 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report improvement in acne severity. We are also uncertain if statins plus OCP compared with OCP alone reduces testosterone levels, because the certainty of the evidence was very low (MD −0.82, 95% CI −1.38 to −0.26; 48 participants). The study reported that no participants experienced significant side effects.\nStatins versus metformin (2 RCTs)\nWe are uncertain if statins improve menstrual regularity compared with metformin (number of spontaneous menses per six months) compared to metformin (MD 0.50 menses, 95% CI −0.05 to 1.05; 1 RCT, 61 participants, very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported resumption of spontaneous ovulation.\nWe are uncertain if statins compared with metformin reduce hirsutism measured using the Ferriman-Gallwey score (MD −0.26, 95% CI −0.97 to 0.45; 1 RCT, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence), acne severity measured on a scale of 0 to 3 (MD −0.18, 95% CI −0.53 to 0.17; 1 RCT, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or testosterone levels (MD −0.24, 95% CI −0.58 to 0.10; 1 RCT, 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nBoth trials reported that no significant adverse events had occurred.\nStatins versus oral contraceptive pill plus flutamide (1 RCT)\nAccording to the study report, no participants experienced any significant side effects. There were no available data for any other main outcomes.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence for all main outcomes of this review was of very low certainty. Due to the limited evidence, we are uncertain if statins compared with placebo, or statins plus metformin compared with metformin alone, improve resumption of menstrual regularity. The trial evaluating statin plus OCP versus OCP alone reported neither of our primary outcomes. No other studies reported resumption of spontaneous ovulation. We are uncertain if statins improve hirsutism, acne severity, or testosterone. All trials that measured adverse events reported no significant differences between the groups.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "1. We are uncertain if statins improve the regularity of menstrual periods, hirsutism (excessive hair growth), acne (pimples), or levels of testosterone (male sex hormone).2. No studies looked at spontaneous ovulation.3. Statins may not increase the risk of unwanted events, though the evidence is limited."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8303
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nImmune checkpoint inhibitors are increasingly important in the treatment algorithm for locally advanced and metastatic bladder cancer. Numerous ongoing studies are investigating these agents as first- and second-line therapies, both alone and in combination with chemotherapy or in a maintenance therapy setting.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors compared to chemotherapy as first- and second-line treatment of advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, several trial registers, other sources of gray literature, and conference proceedings, with no restrictions on language of publication. We limited the search period to run from 2000 until August 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using immunotherapy versus chemotherapy and would have considered non-randomized trials in the absence of randomized trial data. Participants had locally advanced inoperable (cT4b or N+, or both) or metastatic (M1) (or both) urothelial carcinoma of the bladder or upper urinary tract. We excluded studies of people in whom immunotherapy was used in combination with chemotherapy or in a surveillance setting.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently classified studies for inclusion and abstracted data from included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence on a per-outcome basis.\nMain results\nWe included five RCTs and identified seven single-armed studies. The RCTs included 3572 participants comparing immunotherapy versus chemotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic bladder cancer.\nFirst-line therapy\nImmunotherapy probably has little to no effect on the risk of death from any cause when used as first-line therapy compared to chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 2068 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 750 deaths per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 11 fewer (45 fewer to 26 more) deaths per 1000 participants with immunotherapy at 36 months. Immunotherapy probably has little to no effect on health-related quality of life (mean difference (MD) 4.10, 95% CI 3.83 to 4.37; 1 study, 393 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), when assuming a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of at least 6 points (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Bladder [FACT-BL] tool; scale 0 to 156 with higher scores representing better quality of life). Immunotherapy probably reduces adverse events grade 3 to 5 (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.75; I2 = 97%; 3 studies, 2046 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 908 grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with chemotherapy, with 481 fewer (644 fewer to 227 fewer) grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with immunotherapy.\nWe found no evidence for the outcome time to death from bladder cancer. Immunotherapy probably increases the risk of time to disease progression (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.50; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 1349 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 660 events per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 102 more (57 more to 152 more) events per 1000 participants with immunotherapy at 36 months. Immunotherapy may reduce discontinuations due to adverse effects (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.10; I2 = 94%; 3 studies, 2046 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 338 discontinuations per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 179 fewer (271 fewer to 34 more) discontinuations per 1000 participants with immunotherapy.\nSecond-line therapy\nImmunotherapy may reduce the risk of death from any cause when used as second-line therapy (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.81; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 1473 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 920 deaths per 1000 participants with chemotherapy (vinflunine, paclitaxel, docetaxel) and 59 fewer (95 fewer to 28 fewer) deaths per 1000 participants with immunotherapy at 36 months. Immunotherapy may have little to no effect on health-related quality of life when compared to chemotherapy (MD 4.82, 95% CI -3.11 to 12.75; I2 = 85%; 2 studies, 727 participants; low-certainty evidence), assuming an MCID of at least 10 points (using the EORTC QLQ tool; scale 0 to 100 with higher scores representing better quality of life). Immunotherapy may reduce adverse events grade 3 to 5 in participants undergoing second-line therapy (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; I2 = 9%; 2 studies, 1423 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 630 grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 76 fewer (126 fewer to 25 fewer) grade 3 to 5 adverse events per 1000 participants with immunotherapy.\nWe found no evidence for the outcome of time to death from bladder cancer. We are very uncertain if immunotherapy reduces the risk of disease progression (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.16; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 1473 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Immunotherapy may reduce discontinuations due to adverse events in participants undergoing second-line therapy (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.72; I2 = 69%; 2 studies, 1473 participants; low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 110 discontinuations per 1000 participants with chemotherapy and 72 fewer (91 fewer to 31 fewer) discontinuations per 1000 participants with immunotherapy.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to chemotherapy, immunotherapy for treating advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma probably has little to no effect on the risk of death from any cause when used as first-line therapy. Still, it may reduce the risk of death from any cause when used as second-line therapy. Health-related quality of life for participants receiving first- and second-line therapy does not appear to be affected by immunotherapy. Immunotherapy probably reduces or may reduce adverse events grade 3 to 5 when used as first- and second-line therapy, respectively.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Main limitations of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Depending on the outcome, we have little to moderate confidence in the evidence."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8304
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMultiple sclerosis (MS) is a common demyelinating disease of the central nervous system. Although the exact pathogenesis remains unknown, the leading theory is that it results from immune system dysregulation. Approved disease-modifying therapy appears to modulate the immune system to improve MS-related outcomes. There is substantial interest in the ability of dietary interventions to influence MS-related outcomes. This is an update of the Cochrane Review 'Dietary interventions for multiple sclerosis' (Farinotti 2003; Farinotti 2007; Farinotti 2012).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of dietary interventions (including dietary plans with recommendations for specific whole foods, macronutrients, and natural health products) compared to placebo or another intervention on health outcomes (including MS-related outcomes and serious adverse events) in people with MS.\nSearch methods\nOn 30 May 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD). We checked reference lists in identified trials and requested information from trial authors to identify any additional published or unpublished data.\nSelection criteria\nWe included any randomized controlled trial (RCT) or controlled clinical trial (CCT) examining the effect of a dietary intervention versus placebo or another intervention among participants with MS on MS-related outcomes, including relapses, disability progression, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Planned primary outcomes were number of participants experiencing relapse and change in disability progression, according to a validated disability scale at the last reported follow-up. Secondary outcomes included MRI activity, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. We entered and analysed data in Review Manager 5.\nMain results\nWe found 41 full-text articles examining 30 trials following full-text review. Participants were adults with MS, defined by established criteria, presenting to MS clinics in Europe, North America, and the Middle East. Study design varied considerably, although all trials had at least one methodological issue leading to unknown or high risk of bias. Trials examined: supplementation to increase polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) (11 trials); a variety of antioxidant supplements (10 trials); dietary programmes (3 trials); and other dietary supplements (e.g. acetyl L-carnitine, biotin, creatine, palmitoylethanolamide, probiotic, riboflavin) (6 trials).\nIn three trials comparing PUFAs with monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), the evidence was very uncertain concerning difference in relapses (risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.20; 3 studies, 217 participants; 75% in the PUFA group versus 74% in the MUFA group; very low-certainty evidence). Among four trials comparing PUFAs with MUFAs, there may be little to no difference in global impression of deterioration (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.03; 4 studies, 542 participants; 40% in the PUFA group versus 47% in the MUFA group; low-certainty evidence). In two trials comparing PUFAs with MUFAs (102 participants), there was very low-certainty evidence for change in disability progression. None of the PUFA versus MUFA trials examined MRI outcomes. In one trial comparing PUFAs with MUFAs (40 participants), there were no serious adverse events; based on low-certainty evidence.\nIn two trials comparing different PUFAs (omega-3 versus omega-6), there may be little to no difference in relapses (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.66; 2 studies, 129 participants; 30% in the omega-3 versus 29% in the omega-6 group; low-certainty evidence). Among three trials comparing omega-3 with omega-6, there may be little to no difference in change in disability progression, measured as mean change in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.30; 3 studies, 166 participants; low-certainty evidence). In one trial comparing omega-3 with omega-6, there was likely no difference in global impression of deterioration (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.91; 1 study, 86 participants; 29% in omega-3 versus 29% in omega-6 group; moderate-certainty evidence). In one trial comparing omega-3 with omega-6 (86 participants), there was likely no difference in number of new T1- weighted gadolinium-enhancing lesions, based on moderate-certainty evidence. In four trials comparing omega-3 with omega-6, there may be little to no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.31; 4 studies, 230 participants; 6% in omega-3 versus 5% in omega-6 group; low-certainty evidence).\nIn four trials examining antioxidant supplementation with placebo, there may be little to no difference in relapses (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.64; 4 studies, 345 participants; 17% in the antioxidant group versus 17% in the placebo group; low-certainty evidence). In six trials examining antioxidant supplementation with placebo, the evidence was very uncertain concerning change in disability progression, measured as mean change of EDSS (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.11; 6 studies, 490 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In two trials examining antioxidant supplementation with placebo, there may be little to no difference in global impression of deterioration (RR 0.99, 95% 0.50 to 1.93; 2 studies, 190 participants; 15% in the antioxidant group versus 15% in the placebo group; low-certainty evidence). In two trials examining antioxidant supplementation with placebo, the evidence was very uncertain concerning difference in gadolinium-enhancing lesions (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.88; 2 studies, 131 participants; 11% in the antioxidant group versus 16% in the placebo group; very low-certainty evidence). In three trials examining antioxidant supplementation versus placebo, there may be little to no difference in serious adverse events (RR. 0.72, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.08; 3 studies, 222 participants; 3% in the antioxidant group versus 4% in the placebo group; low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are a variety of controlled trials addressing the effects of dietary interventions for MS with substantial variation in active treatment, comparator, and outcomes of interest. PUFA administration may not differ when compared to alternatives with regards to relapse rate, disability worsening, or overall clinical status in people with MS, but evidence is uncertain. Similarly, at present, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether supplementation with antioxidants or other dietary interventions have any impact on MS-related outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "MS is a disorder where there is damage to the connecting fibres (white matter) in the brain and spinal cord. This can result in a variety of neurological symptoms, including weakness, vision loss, sensory alteration, incoordination, and problems with bowel and bladder. The cause is unknown, but the leading theory is that the body's own immune system plays a role in the disease. Approved treatments for MS work by regulating the immune system. There is interest in whether dietary interventions, such as specific diets or dietary supplements may influence MS."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8305
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), which is also known as motor neuron disease (MND), is a fatal disease associated with rapidly progressive disability, for which no definitive treatment exists. Current treatment approaches largely focus on relieving symptoms to improve the quality of life of those affected. The therapeutic potential of cell-based therapies in ALS/MND has not been fully evaluated, given the paucity of high-quality clinical trials. Based on data from preclinical studies, cell-based therapy is a promising treatment for ALS/MND. This review was first published in 2015 when the first clinical trials of cell-based therapies were still in progress. We undertook this update to incorporate evidence now available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of cell-based therapy for people with ALS/MND, compared with placebo or no treatment.\nSearch methods\nOn 31 July 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched two clinical trials registries for ongoing or unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs that assigned people with ALS/MND to receive cell-based therapy versus a placebo or no additional treatment. Co-interventions were allowed, provided that they were given to each group equally.\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nTwo RCTs involving 112 participants were eligible for inclusion in this review. One study compared autologous bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSC) plus riluzole versus control (riluzole only), while the other study compared combined intramuscular and intrathecal administration of autologous mesenchymal stem cells secreting neurotrophic factors (MSC-NTF) to placebo. The latter study was reported as an abstract and provided no numerical data. Both studies were funded by biotechnology companies.\nThe only study that contributed to the outcome data in the review involved 64 participants, comparing BM-MSC plus riluzole versus control (riluzole only). It reported outcomes after four to six months. It had a low risk of selection bias, detection bias and reporting bias, but a high risk of performance bias and attrition bias. The certainty of evidence was low for all major efficacy outcomes, with imprecision as the main downgrading factor, because the range of plausible estimates, as shown by the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), encompassed a range that would likely result in different clinical decisions.\nFunctional impairment, expressed as the mean change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) score from baseline to six months after cell injection was slightly reduced (better) in the BM-MSC group compared to the control group (mean difference (MD) 3.38, 95% CI 1.22 to 5.54; 1 RCT, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence). ALSFRS-R has a range from 48 (normal) to 0 (maximally impaired); a change of 4 or more points is considered clinically important. The trial did not report outcomes at 12 months. There was no clear difference between the BM-MSC and the no treatment group in change in respiratory function (per cent predicted forced vital capacity; FVC%; MD –0.53, 95% CI –5.37 to 4.31; 1 RCT, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence); overall survival at six months (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence); risk of total adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.72; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure muscle strength.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, there is a lack of high-certainty evidence to guide practice on the use of cell-based therapy to treat ALS/MND. Uncertainties remain as to whether this mode of therapy is capable of restoring muscle function, slowing disease progression, and improving survival in people with ALS/MND. Although one RCT provided low-certainty evidence that BM-MSC may slightly reduce functional impairment measured on the ALSFRS-R after four to six months, this was a small phase II trial that cannot be used to establish efficacy.\nWe need large, prospective RCTs with long-term follow-up to establish the efficacy and safety of cellular therapy and to determine patient-, disease- and cell treatment-related factors that may influence the outcome of cell-based therapy. The major goals of future research are to determine the appropriate cell source, phenotype, dose and method of delivery, as these will be key elements in designing an optimal cell-based therapy programme for people with ALS/MND. Future research should also explore novel treatment strategies, including combinations of cellular therapy and standard or novel neuroprotective agents, to find the best possible approach to prevent or reverse the neurological deficit in ALS/MND, and to prolong survival in this debilitating and fatal condition.\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": "Cochrane review authors searched medical databases for clinical trials. They found two completed RCTs that assessed the effects of cell-based therapy over a six-month follow-up period. One study was not fully published and did not provide numerical data. Both studies were funded by stem cell companies. One study, which included 64 people with ALS/MND, provided data. The people taking part in the trial had an average time since symptom onset of about two years. They had mild to moderate problems with motor function (ability to perform physical tasks) at the start of the trial (with an average of 35 on the ALS Functional Rating Scale-revised, on which a score of 0 indicates greatest impairment and 48 is normal function)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8306
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOro/nasopharyngeal suction is a method used to clear secretions from the oropharynx and nasopharynx through the application of negative pressure via a suction catheter or bulb syringe. Traditionally, airway oro/nasopharyngeal suction at birth has been used routinely to remove fluid rapidly from the oropharynx and nasopharynx in vigorous and non-vigorous infants at birth. Concerns relating to the reported adverse effects of oro/nasopharyngeal suctioning led to a practice review and routine oro/nasopharyngeal suctioning is no longer recommended for vigorous infants. However, it is important to know whether there is any clear benefit or harm for infants whose oro/nasopharyngeal airway is suctioned compared to infants who are not suctioned.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effect of routine oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal suction compared to no suction on mortality and morbidity in newly born infants.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to April 18, 2016), Embase (1980 to April 18, 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to April 18, 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised, quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster randomised trials that evaluated the effect of routine oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal suction compared to no suction on mortality and morbidity in newly born infants with and without meconium-stained amniotic fluid.\nData collection and analysis\nThe review authors extracted from the reports of the clinical trials, data regarding clinical outcomes including mortality, need for resuscitation, admission to neonatal intensive care, five minute Apgar score, episodes of apnoea and length of hospital stay.\nMain results\nEight randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and only included term infants (n = 4011). Five studies included infants with no fetal distress and clear amniotic fluid, one large study included vigorous infants with clear or meconium-stained amniotic fluid, and two large studies included infants with thin or thick meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Overall, there was no statistical difference between oro/nasopharyngeal suction and no oro/nasopharyngeal suction for all reported outcomes: mortality (typical RR 2.29, 95% CI 0.94 to 5.53; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.01; I2 = 0%, studies = 2, participants = 3023), need for resuscitation (typical RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06; typical RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.00; I2 = 0%, studies = 5, participants = 3791), admission to NICU (typical RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.08; typical RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.01; I2 = 27%, studies = 2, participants = 997) and Apgar scores at five minutes (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.02; I2 not estimated, studies = 3, participants = 330).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe currently available evidence does not support or refute the benefits or harms of routine oro/nasopharyngeal suction over no suction. Further high-quality studies are required in preterm infants or term newborn infants with thick meconium amniotic fluid. Studies should investigate long-term effects such as neurodevelopmental outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The transition from fetus to newborn involves the clearing of lung fluid and expansion of the lungs with air. Traditionally, oro/nasopharyngeal suctioning at birth has been used routinely to remove fluids in vigorous infants at birth. While airway oro/nasopharyngeal suctioning can be successful in clearing the airway immediately after birth, the procedure can have serious consequences that may outweigh the potential benefits of oro/nasopharyngeal suctioning. This review examined the effect of oro/nasopharyngeal suctioning versus no suctioning."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8307
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn the absence of bleeding, plasma is commonly transfused to people prophylactically to prevent bleeding. In this context, it is transfused before operative or invasive procedures (such as liver biopsy or chest drainage tube insertion) in those considered at increased risk of bleeding, typically defined by abnormalities of laboratory tests of coagulation. As plasma contains procoagulant factors, plasma transfusion may reduce perioperative bleeding risk. This outcome has clinical importance given that perioperative bleeding and blood transfusion have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Plasma is expensive, and some countries have experienced issues with blood product shortages, donor pool reliability, and incomplete screening for transmissible infections. Thus, although the benefit of prophylactic plasma transfusion has not been well established, plasma transfusion does carry potentially life-threatening risks.\nObjectives\nTo determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of prophylactic plasma transfusion for people with coagulation test abnormalities (in the absence of inherited bleeding disorders or use of anticoagulant medication) requiring non-cardiac surgery or invasive procedures.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), without language or publication status restrictions in: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017 Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946); Ovid Embase (from 1974); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCOHost) (from 1937); PubMed (e-publications and in-process citations ahead of print only); Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950); Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982); Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (Thomson Reuters, from 1990); ClinicalTrials.gov; and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Search Platform (ICTRP) to 28 January 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs comparing: prophylactic plasma transfusion to placebo, intravenous fluid, or no intervention; prophylactic plasma transfusion to alternative pro-haemostatic agents; or different haemostatic thresholds for prophylactic plasma transfusion. We included participants of any age, and we excluded trials incorporating individuals with previous active bleeding, with inherited bleeding disorders, or taking anticoagulant medication before enrolment.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.\nMain results\nWe included five trials in this review, all were conducted in high-income countries. Three additional trials are ongoing.\nOne trial compared fresh frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion with no transfusion given. One trial compared FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion given. One trial compared FFP transfusion with administration of alternative pro-haemostatic agents (factors II, IX, and X followed by VII). One trial compared the use of different transfusion triggers using the international normalised ratio measurement. One trial compared the use of a thromboelastographic-guided transfusion trigger using standard laboratory measurements of coagulation.\nFour trials enrolled only adults, whereas the fifth trial did not specify participant age. Four trials included only minor procedures that could be performed by the bedside. Only one trial included some participants undergoing major surgical operations. Two trials included only participants in intensive care. Two trials included only participants with liver disease.\nThree trials did not recruit sufficient participants to meet their pre-calculated sample size. Overall, the quality of evidence was low to very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology, due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.\nOne trial was stopped after recruiting two participants, therefore this review's findings are based on the remaining four trials (234 participants).\nWhen plasma transfusion was compared with no transfusion given, we are very uncertain whether there was a difference in 30-day mortality (1 trial comparing FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion, 72 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 1.10; very low-quality evidence).\nWe are very uncertain whether there was a difference in major bleeding within 24 hours (1 trial comparing FFP transfusion vs no transfusion, 76 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.93; very low-quality evidence; 1 trial comparing FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion, 72 participants; RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 8.93; very low-quality evidence).\nWe are very uncertain whether there was a difference in the number of blood product transfusions per person (1 trial, 76 participants; study authors reported no difference; very low-quality evidence) or in the number of people requiring transfusion (1 trial comparing FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion, 72 participants; study authors reported no blood transfusion given; very low-quality evidence) or in the risk of transfusion-related adverse events (acute lung injury) (1 trial, 76 participants; study authors reported no difference; very low-quality evidence).\nWhen plasma transfusion was compared with other pro-haemostatic agents, we are very uncertain whether there was a difference in major bleeding (1 trial; 21 participants; no events; very low-quality evidence) or in transfusion-related adverse events (febrile or allergic reactions) (1 trial, 21 participants; RR 9.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 162.24; very low-quality evidence).\nWhen different triggers for FFP transfusion were compared, the number of people requiring transfusion may have been reduced (for overall blood products) when a thromboelastographic-guided transfusion trigger was compared with standard laboratory tests (1 trial, 60 participants; RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether there was a difference in major bleeding (1 trial, 60 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-quality evidence) or in transfusion-related adverse events (allergic reactions) (1 trial; 60 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-quality evidence).\nOnly one trial reported 30-day mortality. No trials reported procedure-related harmful events (excluding bleeding) or quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nReview findings show uncertainty for the utility and safety of prophylactic FFP use. This is due to predominantly very low-quality evidence that is available for its use over a range of clinically important outcomes, together with lack of confidence in the wider applicability of study findings, given the paucity or absence of study data in settings such as major body cavity surgery, extensive soft tissue surgery, orthopaedic surgery, or neurosurgery. Therefore, from the limited RCT evidence, we can neither support nor oppose the use of prophylactic FFP in clinical practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Human plasma, a blood component, is often transfused to people before undergoing surgery or other procedures (such as inserting a chest drainage tube) when blood tests show that their blood may not clot adequately. Aims of this review were to assess how effective this practice is in reducing subsequent bleeding or need for blood transfusion, and whether this approach increases risk of death or other significantly harmful effects. The review excluded people with inherited bleeding disorders and those taking medication that reduces their blood's clotting ability."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8308
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nYoga is an ancient body-mind practice which originated in India and is popular in the Western world as a form of relaxation and exercise. It has been of interest for people with schizophrenia to determine the efficacy of yoga delivered as a package of care versus non-standard care.\nObjectives\nTo examine the effects of yoga as part of a package of care versus non-standard care for schizophrenia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (latest 15 May 2018) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, BIOSS, AMED, PsychINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We searched the references of all included studies. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including people with schizophrenia comparing yoga as part of a package of care with non-standard care.\nData collection and analysis\nThere were no data to analyse as no studies met the inclusion criteria.\nMain results\nThe searches identified 30 studies that could be relevant to this review. After careful inspection, 29 were excluded and one is ongoing. No data were available for analyses.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn view of the lack of evidence from RCTs, it is currently not possible for us to comment on the use of yoga as part of a package of care versus non-standard care.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Is yoga, delivered as part of a larger package of care, effective for people with schizophrenia compared with non-standard care?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8309
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTracheostomy formation is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in critically ill intensive care participants requiring long-term mechanical ventilation. Both surgical tracheostomies (STs) and percutaneous tracheostomies (PTs) are used in current surgical practice; but until now, the optimal method of performing tracheostomies in critically ill participants remains unclear.\nObjectives\nWe evaluated the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous techniques compared to surgical techniques commonly used for elective tracheostomy in critically ill participants (adults and children) to assess whether there was a difference in complication rates between the procedures. We also assessed whether the effect varied between different groups of participants or settings (intensive care unit (ICU), operating room), different levels of operator experience, different percutaneous techniques, or whether the percutaneous techniques were carried out with or without bronchoscopic guidance.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL to 28 May 2015. We also searched reference lists of articles, 'grey literature', and dissertations. We handsearched intensive care and anaesthesia journals, abstracts, and proceedings of scientific meetings. We attempted to identify unpublished or ongoing studies by contacting manufacturers and experts in the field, and searching in trial registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (quasi-RCTs) comparing percutaneous techniques (experimental intervention) with surgical techniques (control intervention) used for elective tracheostomy in critically ill participants (adults and children).\nData collection and analysis\nThree authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data on methodological quality, participant characteristics, intervention details, settings, and outcomes of interest using a standardized form. We then entered data into Review Manager 5, with a double-entry procedure.\nMain results\nOf 785 identified citations, 20 trials from 1990 to 2011 enrolling 1652 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria. We judged most of the trials to be at low or unclear risk of bias across the six domains, and we judged four studies to have elements of high risk of bias; we did not classify any studies at overall low risk of bias. The quality of evidence was low for five of the seven outcomes (very low N = 1, moderate N = 1) and there was heterogeneity among the studies. There was a variety of adult participants and the procedures were performed by a wide range of differently experienced operators in different situations.\nThere was no evidence of a difference in the rate of the primary outcomes: mortality directly related to the procedure (Peto odds ratio (POR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 2.60, I² = 44%, P = 0.42, 4 studies, 257 participants, low quality evidence); and serious, life-threatening adverse events - intraoperatively: risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.53, I² = 27%, P = 0.78, 12 studies, 1211 participants, low quality evidence,and direct postoperatively: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.25, I² = 24%, P = 0.24, 10 studies, 984 participants, low quality evidence.\nPTs significantly reduce the rate of the secondary outcome, wound infection/stomatitis by 76% (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.37, I² = 0%, P < 0.00001, 12 studies, 936 participants, moderate quality evidence) and the rate of unfavourable scarring by 75% (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.91, I² = 86%, P = 0.04, 6 studies, 789 participants, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of the secondary outcomes, major bleeding (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.09, I² = 47%, P = 0.12, 10 studies, 984 participants, very low quality evidence) and tracheostomy tube occlusion/obstruction, accidental decannulation, difficult tube change (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.82, I² = 22%, P = 0.42, 6 studies, 538 participants, low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen compared to STs, PTs significantly reduce the rate of wound infection/stomatitis (moderate quality evidence) and the rate of unfavourable scarring (low quality evidence due to imprecision and heterogeneity). In terms of mortality and the rate of serious adverse events, there was low quality evidence that non-significant positive effects exist for PTs. In terms of the rate of major bleeding, there was very low quality evidence that non-significant positive effects exist for PTs.\nHowever, because several groups of participants were excluded from the included studies, the number of participants in the included studies was limited, long-term outcomes were not evaluated, and data on participant-relevant outcomes were either sparse or not available for each study, the results of this meta-analysis are limited and cannot be applied to all critically ill adults.\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 application of percutaneous techniques, does not reduce the rate of death, of serious, life-threatening complications (e.g. injuries to the windpipe or the oesophagus), major bleeding or problems with the tracheostomy tube (blockage, accidental loss, difficult tube change). There was some evidence that using percutaneous techniques results in fewer cases of wound infections (- 76%) and unfavourable scarring (- 75%)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8310
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nOutcome after acute spontaneous (non-traumatic) intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is influenced by haematoma volume. ICH expansion occurs in about 20% of people with acute ICH. Early haemostatic therapy might improve outcome by limiting ICH expansion. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006, and last updated in 2018.\nObjectives\nTo examine 1. the effects of individual classes of haemostatic therapies, compared with placebo or open control, in adults with acute spontaneous ICH, and 2. the effects of each class of haemostatic therapy according to the use and type of antithrombotic drug before ICH onset.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, CENTRAL (2022, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase Ovid on 12 September 2022. To identify further published, ongoing, and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we scanned bibliographies of relevant articles and searched international registers of RCTs in September 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs of any haemostatic intervention (i.e. procoagulant treatments such as clotting factor concentrates, antifibrinolytic drugs, platelet transfusion, or agents to reverse the action of antithrombotic drugs) for acute spontaneous ICH, compared with placebo, open control, or an active comparator.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was death/dependence (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 4 to 6) by day 90. Secondary outcomes were ICH expansion on brain imaging after 24 hours, all serious adverse events, thromboembolic adverse events, death from any cause, quality of life, mood, cognitive function, Barthel Index score, and death or dependence measured on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale by day 90.\nMain results\nWe included 20 RCTs involving 4652 participants: nine RCTs of recombinant activated factor VII (rFVIIa) versus placebo/open control (1549 participants), eight RCTs of antifibrinolytic drugs versus placebo/open control (2866 participants), one RCT of platelet transfusion versus open control (190 participants), and two RCTs of prothrombin complex concentrates (PCC) versus fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (47 participants). Four (20%) RCTs were at low risk of bias in all criteria.\nFor rFVIIa versus placebo/open control for spontaneous ICH with or without surgery there was little to no difference in death/dependence by day 90 (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 1454 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found little to no difference in ICH expansion between groups (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.16; 4 RCTs, 220 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in all serious adverse events and death from any cause between groups (all serious adverse events: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.22; 2 RCTs, 87 participants; very low-certainty evidence; death from any cause: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.08; 8 RCTs, 1544 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nFor antifibrinolytic drugs versus placebo/open control for spontaneous ICH, there was no difference in death/dependence by day 90 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.07; 5 RCTs, 2683 participants; high-certainty evidence). We found a slight reduction in ICH expansion with antifibrinolytic drugs for spontaneous ICH compared to placebo/open control (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.96; 8 RCTs, 2866 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in all serious adverse events and death from any cause between groups (all serious adverse events: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.39; 4 RCTs, 2599 participants; high-certainty evidence; death from any cause: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.18; 8 RCTs, 2866 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in quality of life, mood, or cognitive function (quality of life: mean difference (MD) 0, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 2 RCTs, 2349 participants; mood: MD 0.30, 95% CI -1.98 to 2.57; 2 RCTs, 2349 participants; cognitive function: MD -0.37, 95% CI -1.40 to 0.66; 1 RCTs, 2325 participants; all high-certainty evidence).\nPlatelet transfusion likely increases death/dependence by day 90 compared to open control for antiplatelet-associated ICH (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.61; 1 RCT, 190 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little to no difference in ICH expansion between groups (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.92; 1 RCT, 153 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in all serious adverse events and death from any cause between groups (all serious adverse events: RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.16; 1 RCT, 190 participants; death from any cause: RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.28; 1 RCT, 190 participants; both moderate-certainty evidence).\nFor PCC versus FFP for anticoagulant-associated ICH, the evidence was very uncertain about the effect on death/dependence by day 90, ICH expansion, all serious adverse events, and death from any cause between groups (death/dependence by day 90: RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.90; 1 RCT, 37 participants; ICH expansion: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 36 participants; all serious adverse events: RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.02 to 3.74; 1 RCT, 5 participants; death from any cause: RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.56; 2 RCTs, 42 participants; all very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn this updated Cochrane Review including 20 RCTs involving 4652 participants, rFVIIa likely results in little to no difference in reducing death or dependence after spontaneous ICH with or without surgery; antifibrinolytic drugs result in little to no difference in reducing death or dependence after spontaneous ICH, but result in a slight reduction in ICH expansion within 24 hours; platelet transfusion likely increases death or dependence after antiplatelet-associated ICH; and the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of PCC compared to FFP on death or dependence after anticoagulant-associated ICH. Thirteen RCTs are ongoing and are likely to increase the certainty of the estimates of treatment effect.\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": "Although we found 20 studies including 4652 people, they were spread across four different comparisons of haemostatic therapies. This meant that many of the studies were not precise enough and they could have missed small but important benefits. Two of the comparisons included only one study each. Eight studies used placebo but in the others it is possible that people were aware of which treatment they were getting, which might have biased the results. Some of the studies did not provide data about all the outcomes that we intended to assess. More information will become available from 13 studies that were ongoing at the time of this review."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8311
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDepression is a common and important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Depression is commonly treated with antidepressants and/or psychological therapy, but some people may prefer alternative approaches such as exercise. There are a number of theoretical reasons why exercise may improve depression. This is an update of an earlier review first published in 2009.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of exercise in the treatment of depression in adults compared with no treatment or a comparator intervention.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group’s Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR) to 13 July 2012. This register includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years); MEDLINE (1950 to date); EMBASE (1974 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We also searched www.controlled-trials.com, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. No date or language restrictions were applied to the search.\nWe conducted an additional search of the CCDANCTR up to 1st March 2013 and any potentially eligible trials not already included are listed as 'awaiting classification.'\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials in which exercise (defined according to American College of Sports Medicine criteria) was compared to standard treatment, no treatment or a placebo treatment, pharmacological treatment, psychological treatment or other active treatment in adults (aged 18 and over) with depression, as defined by trial authors. We included cluster trials and those that randomised individuals. We excluded trials of postnatal depression.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data on primary and secondary outcomes at the end of the trial and end of follow-up (if available). We calculated effect sizes for each trial using Hedges' g method and a standardised mean difference (SMD) for the overall pooled effect, using a random-effects model risk ratio for dichotomous data. Where trials used a number of different tools to assess depression, we included the main outcome measure only in the meta-analysis. Where trials provided several 'doses' of exercise, we used data from the biggest 'dose' of exercise, and performed sensitivity analyses using the lower 'dose'. We performed subgroup analyses to explore the influence of method of diagnosis of depression (diagnostic interview or cut-off point on scale), intensity of exercise and the number of sessions of exercise on effect sizes. Two authors performed the 'Risk of bias' assessments. Our sensitivity analyses explored the influence of study quality on outcome.\nMain results\nThirty-nine trials (2326 participants) fulfilled our inclusion criteria, of which 37 provided data for meta-analyses. There were multiple sources of bias in many of the trials; randomisation was adequately concealed in 14 studies, 15 used intention-to-treat analyses and 12 used blinded outcome assessors.\nFor the 35 trials (1356 participants) comparing exercise with no treatment or a control intervention, the pooled SMD for the primary outcome of depression at the end of treatment was -0.62 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.81 to -0.42), indicating a moderate clinical effect. There was moderate heterogeneity (I² = 63%).\nWhen we included only the six trials (464 participants) with adequate allocation concealment, intention-to-treat analysis and blinded outcome assessment, the pooled SMD for this outcome was not statistically significant (-0.18, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.11). Pooled data from the eight trials (377 participants) providing long-term follow-up data on mood found a small effect in favour of exercise (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03).\nTwenty-nine trials reported acceptability of treatment, three trials reported quality of life, none reported cost, and six reported adverse events.\nFor acceptability of treatment (assessed by number of drop-outs during the intervention), the risk ratio was 1.00 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.04).\nSeven trials compared exercise with psychological therapy (189 participants), and found no significant difference (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.26). Four trials (n = 300) compared exercise with pharmacological treatment and found no significant difference (SMD -0.11, -0.34, 0.12). One trial (n = 18) reported that exercise was more effective than bright light therapy (MD -6.40, 95% CI -10.20 to -2.60).\nFor each trial that was included, two authors independently assessed for sources of bias in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration 'Risk of bias' tool. In exercise trials, there are inherent difficulties in blinding both those receiving the intervention and those delivering the intervention. Many trials used participant self-report rating scales as a method for post-intervention analysis, which also has the potential to bias findings.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExercise is moderately more effective than a control intervention for reducing symptoms of depression, but analysis of methodologically robust trials only shows a smaller effect in favour of exercise. When compared to psychological or pharmacological therapies, exercise appears to be no more effective, though this conclusion is based on a few small trials.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Which studies were included in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We used search databases to find all high-quality randomised controlled trials of how effective exercise is for treating depression in adults over 18 years of age. We searched for studies published up until March 2013. We also searched for ongoing studies to March 2013. All studies had to include adults with a diagnosis of depression, and the physical activity carried out had to fit criteria to ensure that it met with a definition of ‘exercise’.\nWe included 39 studies with a total of 2326 participants in the review. The reviewers noted that the quality of some of the studies was low, which limits confidence in the findings. When only high-quality trials were included, exercise had only a small effect on mood that was not statistically significant."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8312
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHip fracture is a major injury that causes significant problems for affected individuals and their family and carers. Over 40% of people with hip fracture have dementia or cognitive impairment. The outcomes of these individuals after surgery are poorer than for those without dementia. It is unclear which care and rehabilitation interventions achieve the best outcomes for these people. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013.\nObjectives\n(a) To assess the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies designed specifically for people with dementia following hip fracture surgery compared to usual care.\n(b) To assess for people with dementia the effectiveness of models of care including enhanced rehabilitation strategies that are designed for all older people, regardless of cognitive status, following hip fracture surgery, compared to usual care.\nSearch methods\nWe searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 16 October 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of any model of enhanced care and rehabilitation for people with dementia after hip fracture surgery compared to usual care.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We synthesised data only if we considered the trials to be sufficiently homogeneous in terms of participants, interventions, and outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome.\nMain results\nWe included seven trials with a total of 555 participants. Three trials compared models of enhanced care in the inpatient setting with conventional care. Two trials compared an enhanced care model provided in inpatient settings and at home after discharge with conventional care. Two trials compared geriatrician-led care in-hospital to conventional care led by the orthopaedic team. None of the interventions were designed specifically for people with dementia, therefore the data included in the review were from subgroups of people with dementia or cognitive impairment participating in randomised controlled trials investigating models of care for all older people following hip fracture. The end of follow-up in the trials ranged from the point of acute hospital discharge to 24 months after discharge.\nWe considered all trials to be at high risk of bias in more than one domain. As subgroups of larger trials, the analyses lacked power to detect differences between the intervention groups. Furthermore, there were some important differences in baseline characteristics of participants between the experimental and control groups. Using the GRADE approach, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low or very low.\nThe effect estimates for almost all comparisons were very imprecise, and the overall certainty for most results was very low. There were no data from any study for our primary outcome of health-related quality of life. There was only very low certainty for our other primary outcome, activities of daily living and functional performance, therefore we were unable to draw any conclusions with confidence. There was low-certainty that enhanced care and rehabilitation in-hospital may reduce rates of postoperative delirium (odds ratio 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.22, 2 trials, n = 141) and very low-certainty associating it with lower rates of some other complications. There was also low-certainty that, compared to orthopaedic-led management, geriatrician-led management may lead to shorter hospital stays (mean difference 4.00 days, 95% CI 3.61 to 4.39, 1 trial, n = 162).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found limited evidence that some of the models of enhanced rehabilitation and care used in the included trials may show benefits over usual care for preventing delirium and reducing length of stay for people with dementia who have been treated for hip fracture. However, the certainty of these results is low. Data were available from only a small number of trials, and the certainty for all other results is very low. Determining the optimal strategies to improve outcomes for this growing population of patients should be a research priority.\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 main issues with the evidence were that most of the studies were small and their results may have been subject to bias. Most of the results of the review are very uncertain. None of the care models had been designed specifically for people with dementia. All of the data included in the review came from people with dementia who had been included in larger trials for all older people with hip fractures, although people with dementia may have particular needs."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8313
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis review is the third update of the Cochrane review \"Selenium for preventing cancer\". Selenium is a naturally occurring element with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancer.\nObjectives\nTo gather and present evidence needed to address two research questions:\n1. What is the aetiological relationship between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans?\n2. Describe the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans.\nSearch methods\nWe updated electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (Ovid, 2013 to January 2017, week 4), and Embase (2013 to 2017, week 6), as well as searches of clinical trial registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies that enrolled adult participants.\nData collection and analysis\nWe performed random-effects (RE) meta-analyses when two or more RCTs were available for a specific outcome. We conducted RE meta-analyses when five or more observational studies were available for a specific outcome. We assessed risk of bias in RCTs and in observational studies using Cochrane's risk assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. We considered in the primary analysis data pooled from RCTs with low risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included 83 studies in this updated review: two additional RCTs (10 in total) and a few additional trial reports for previously included studies. RCTs involved 27,232 participants allocated to either selenium supplements or placebo. For analyses of RCTs with low risk of bias, the summary risk ratio (RR) for any cancer incidence was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.10; 3 studies, 19,475 participants; high-certainty evidence). The RR for estimated cancer mortality was 1.02 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.30; 1 study, 17,448 participants). For the most frequently investigated site-specific cancers, investigators provided little evidence of any effect of selenium supplementation. Two RCTs with 19,009 participants indicated that colorectal cancer was unaffected by selenium administration (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.43), as were non-melanoma skin cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.30 to 4.42; 2 studies, 2027 participants), lung cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.50; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), breast cancer (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 9.55; 1 study, 802 participants), bladder cancer (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.52; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), and prostate cancer (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 4 studies, 18,942 participants). Certainty of the evidence was high for all of these cancer sites, except for breast cancer, which was of moderate certainty owing to imprecision, and non-melanoma skin cancer, which we judged as moderate certainty owing to high heterogeneity. RCTs with low risk of bias suggested increased melanoma risk.\nResults for most outcomes were similar when we included all RCTs in the meta-analysis, regardless of risk of bias. Selenium supplementation did not reduce overall cancer incidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14; 5 studies, 21,860 participants) nor mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 2 studies, 18,698 participants). Summary RRs for site-specific cancers showed limited changes compared with estimates from high-quality studies alone, except for liver cancer, for which results were reversed.\nIn the largest trial, the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial, selenium supplementation increased risks of alopecia and dermatitis, and for participants with highest background selenium status, supplementation also increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. RCTs showed a slightly increased risk of type 2 diabetes associated with supplementation. A hypothesis generated by the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial - that individuals with low blood selenium levels could reduce their risk of cancer (particularly prostate cancer) by increasing selenium intake - has not been confirmed. As RCT participants have been overwhelmingly male (88%), we could not assess the potential influence of sex or gender.\nWe included 15 additional observational cohort studies (70 in total; over 2,360,000 participants). We found that lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; 7 studies, 76,239 participants) and lower cancer mortality (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.97; 7 studies, 183,863 participants) were associated with the highest category of selenium exposure compared with the lowest. Cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.14, 4 studies, 29,365 men) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, 2 studies, 18,244 women). Data show a decrease in risk of site-specific cancers for stomach, colorectal, lung, breast, bladder, and prostate cancers. However, these studies have major weaknesses due to study design, exposure misclassification, and potential unmeasured confounding due to lifestyle or nutritional factors covarying with selenium exposure beyond those taken into account in multi-variable analyses. In addition, no evidence of a dose-response relation between selenium status and cancer risk emerged. Certainty of evidence was very low for each outcome. Some studies suggested that genetic factors might modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk - an issue that merits further investigation.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWell-designed and well-conducted RCTs have shown no beneficial effect of selenium supplements in reducing cancer risk (high certainty of evidence). Some RCTs have raised concerns by reporting a higher incidence of high-grade prostate cancer and type 2 diabetes in participants with selenium supplementation. No clear evidence of an influence of baseline participant selenium status on outcomes has emerged in these studies.\nObservational longitudinal studies have shown an inverse association between selenium exposure and risk of some cancer types, but null and direct relations have also been reported, and no systematic pattern suggesting dose-response relations has emerged. These studies suffer from limitations inherent to the observational design, including exposure misclassification and unmeasured confounding.\nOverall, there is no evidence to suggest that increasing selenium intake through diet or supplementation prevents cancer in humans. However, more research is needed to assess whether selenium may modify the risk of cancer in individuals with a specific genetic background or nutritional status, and to investigate possible differential effects of various forms of selenium.\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": "All of the high-quality randomised trials reported no effect of selenium on reducing overall risk of cancer or risk of particular cancers, including the most investigated outcome - prostate cancer. Some trials unexpectedly suggested that selenium may increase risks of high-grade prostate cancer, type 2 diabetes, and dermatological abnormalities.\nObservational studies have yielded inconsistent evidence of a possible effect of selenium exposure on cancer risk, with no evidence of a dose-response relation. When we pooled results of these studies, overall they suggested an inverse relation between cancer exposure and subsequent incidence of any cancer or some specific cancers, such as colon and prostate cancer. However, observational studies have major weaknesses. The selenium exposure status of participants could have been misclassified owing to limitations of the indicators of selenium exposure used, as well as to uncertainty regarding the particular selenium species contributing to overall exposure. In addition, unmeasured confounding from lifestyle or nutritional factors - a major and well-known source of bias in nutritional epidemiology studies of observational design - could have been present. Therefore, the internal validity of these studies is limited.\nCurrently, the hypothesis that increasing selenium intake may reduce cancer risk is not supported by epidemiological evidence. Additional research is needed to assess whether selenium may affect the risk of cancer in individuals with specific genetic backgrounds or nutritional status, and to determine how the various chemical forms of selenium compounds may have different effects on cancer risk."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8314
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nEmergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2012.\nObjectives\nTo determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.\nSearch methods\nIn February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Popline and PubMed, The Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database. We also searched ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov as well as contacting content experts and pharmaceutical companies, and searching reference lists of appropriate papers.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was observed number of pregnancies. Side effects and changes of menses were secondary outcomes.\nMain results\nWe included 115 trials with 60,479 women in this review. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome ranged from moderate to high, and for other outcomes ranged from very low to high. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods), imprecision and inconsistency.\nComparative effectiveness of different emergency contraceptive pills (ECP)\nLevonorgestrel was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (estradiol-levonorgestrel combination) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I2 = 23%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy using Yuzpe is assumed to be 29 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy using levonorgestrel would be between 11 and 24 women per 1000.\nMifepristone (all doses) was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41, 3 RCTs, n = 2144, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following Yuzpe is assumed to be 25 women per 1000 women, the chance following mifepristone would be between 1 and 10 women per 1000.\nBoth low-dose mifepristone (less than 25 mg) and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were probably associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99, 14 RCTs, n = 8752, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, 27 RCTs, n = 6052, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence; respectively). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 20 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following low-dose mifepristone would be between 10 and 20 women per 1000; and that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 35 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following mid-dose mifepristone would be between 16 and 29 women per 1000.\nUlipristal acetate (UPA) was associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, 2 RCTs, n = 3448, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence).\nComparative effectiveness of different ECP doses\nIt was unclear whether there was any difference in pregnancy rate between single-dose levonorgestrel (1.5 mg) and the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 hours apart) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, n = 6653, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).\nMid-dose mifepristone was associated with fewer pregnancies than low-dose mifepristone (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97, 25 RCTs, n = 11,914, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence).\nComparative effectiveness of Cu-IUD versus mifepristone\nThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the risk of pregnancy between the Cu-IUD and mifepristone (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.74, 2 RCTs, n = 395, low-quality evidence).\nAdverse effects\nNausea and vomiting were the main adverse effects associated with emergency contraception. There is probably a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 2186 , I2 = 59%, moderate-quality evidence) or vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20, 3 RCTs, n = 2186, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence) associated with mifepristone than with Yuzpe. levonorgestrel is probably associated with a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.44, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I2 = 82%, moderate-quality evidence), or vomiting (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.35, 5 RCTs, n = 3640, I2 = 78%, moderate-quality evidence) than Yuzpe. Levonorgestrel users were less likely to have any side effects than Yuzpe users (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86; 1 RCT, n = 1955, high-quality evidence). UPA users were more likely than levonorgestrel users to have resumption of menstruation after the expected date (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.92, 2 RCTs, n = 3593, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Menstrual delay was more common with mifepristone than with any other intervention and appeared to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than mifepristone (18 events in 95 women using Cu-IUD versus no events in 190 women using mifepristone, low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nLevonorgestrel and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were more effective than Yuzpe regimen. Both mid-dose (25 mg to 50 mg) and low-dose mifepristone(less than 25 mg) were probably more effective than levonorgestrel (1.5 mg). Mifepristone low dose (less than 25 mg) was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone. UPA may be more effective than levonorgestrel.\nLevonorgestrel users had fewer side effects than Yuzpe users, and appeared to be more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date. UPA users were probably more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was probably the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than ECPs.\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": "Emergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve. Researchers in Cochrane collected and analyzed all relevant studies to answer this question."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8315
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTardive dyskinesia is a chronic and disabling abnormal movement disorder affecting the muscles of the face, neck, tongue and the limbs. It is a common side effect of long-term antipsychotic medication use in individuals with schizophrenia and other related psychotic disorders. While there are no known effective treatments for tardive dyskinesia to date, some reports suggest that pyridoxal 5 phosphate may be effective in reducing the severity of tardive dyskinesia symptoms.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of pyridoxal 5 phosphate (vitamin B6 or Pyridoxine or Pyridoxal phosphate) in the treatment of neuroleptic-induced tardive dyskinesia among people with schizophrenia and other related psychotic disorders.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane schizophrenia group's register of clinical trials was searched (January 2013) using the phrase: [*Pyridoxal* OR *Pyridoxine* OR *P5P* OR *PLP* OR *tardoxal* OR *Vitamin B6* O *Vitamin B 6* R in title, abstract or index terms of REFERENCE, or interventions of STUDY. References of relevant identified studies were handsearched and where necessary, the first authors of relevant studies were contacted.\nSelection criteria\nStudies described as randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness pyridoxal 5 phosphate with placebo in the treatment of neuroleptic-induced tardive dyskinesia among patients with schizophrenia.\nData collection and analysis\nThe review authors independently extracted data from each selected study. For dichotomous data, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a fixed-effect model. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs, again based on a fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for each included study and used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to rate quality of evidence.\nMain results\nOf the 12 records retrieved by the search, three trials published in 2001, 2003 and 2007, involving 80 inpatients with schizophrenia, aged 18 to 71 years, admitted in a psychiatric facility and followed up for a period nine weeks to 26 weeks, were included. Overall, pyridoxal 5 phosphate produced a significant improvement in tardive dyskinesia symptoms when compared with placebo, assessed by a change in Extrapyramidal Symptoms Rating Scale (ESRS) scores from baseline to the end of the first phase of the included studies (2 RCTs n = 65, RR 19.97, CI 2.87 to 139.19, low quality evidence). The endpoint tardive dyskinesia score (a measure of its severity) assessed with the ESRS, was significantly lower among participants on pyridoxal 5 phosphate compared to those on placebo (2 RCTs n = 60, MD -4.07, CI -6.36 to -1.79, low quality evidence).\nIt was unclear whether pyridoxal 5 phosphate led to more side effects (n = 65, 2 RCTs, RR 3.97, CI 0.20 to 78.59, low quality evidence) or caused deterioration in tardive dyskinesia symptoms when compared to placebo (n = 65, 2 RCTs, RR 0.16, CI 0.01 to 3.14, low quality evidence). Five participants taking pyridoxal 5 phosphate withdrew from the study because they were not willing to take more medications while none of the participants taking placebo discontinued their medications (n = 65, 2 RCTs, RR 8.72, CI 0.51 to 149.75, low quality evidence).\nThere was no significant difference in the endpoint positive and negative psychiatric symptoms scores, measured using the Positive and Negative symptoms Scale (PANSS) between participants taking pyridoxal 5 phosphate and those taking placebo. For the positive symptoms: (n = 15, 1 RCT, MD -1.50, CI -4.80 to 1.80, low quality evidence). For negative the symptoms: (n = 15, 1 RCT, MD -1.10, CI -5.92 to 3.72, low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nPyridoxal 5 phosphate may have some benefits in reducing the severity of tardive dyskinesia symptoms among individuals with schizophrenia. However, the quality of evidence supporting the effectiveness of pyridoxal 5 phosphate in treating tardive dyskinesia is low, based on few studies, short follow-up periods, small sample sizes and inadequate adherence to standardised reporting guidelines for randomised controlled trials among the included studies.\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": ".\nA search for relevant randomised studies was conducted in January 2013. The review includes three studies with 80 participants. All participants had tardive dyskinesia as a result of taking antipsychotic medication and were randomised into treatment groups. One group received pyridoxal 5 phosphate, the other group received a placebo. Antipsychotic treatment continued as usual throughout the trials."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8316
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDepression is a mood disorder with a prevalence of approximately 1% to 3% worldwide, representing the fourth leading cause of disease burden globally. The current standard treatments of psychological therapy and antidepressant medications are not effective for everyone, and psychotropic drugs may be associated with significant adverse effects. Cranial electrical stimulation (CES) treatment, in which a low intensity electrical current is administered through the use of a small, portable electrical device, has been reported to have efficacy in the treatment of depression with minimal adverse effects. This systematic review investigated the scientific evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of CES in treatment of acute depression compared to sham, or simulated, CES treatment.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of alternating current cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) compared with sham CES for acute depression.\nSearch methods\nWe searched The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis review group's specialized register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) to February 24, 2014 This register contains relevant randomized controlled trials from: The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We examined reference lists of review papers and books on CES. We contacted authors, other experts in the field and CES manufacturing companies for knowledge of suitable published or unpublished trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials of CES versus sham CES for the acute treatment of depressive disorder in adults aged 18 to 75 years.\nData collection and analysis\nWe planned to extract data from the original reports of included studies independently by two authors. The main outcomes to be assessed were:\n(1) the efficacy of CES in reducing symptoms of depression as reflected in change scores on standardized depression rating scales.\n(2) the tolerability of CES treatment to participants, as reflected in rates of discontinuation due to adverse effects.\nWe planned to analyze data using Review Manager 5.\nMain results\nNo studies met the inclusion criteria for this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere are insufficient methodologically rigorous studies of CES in treatment of acute depression. There is a need for double-blind randomized controlled trials of CES in the treatment of acute depression.\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": "We wanted to discover whether cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) is an effective treatment for depression.\nDepression is a mood disorder characterized by predominantly depressed mood, appetite change, sleep disturbance, lack of energy, impaired concentration, lack of interest or pleasure, and sometimes suicidal thoughts, resulting in impaired functioning at work and in interpersonal relationships. In order to confirm a diagnosis of depression, these symptoms must be present for at least two weeks.\nCurrently, evidence-based treatment of depression consists of cognitive-behavioral psychological therapy or antidepressant medications for mild to moderate depression. For severe depression, antidepressant medications are the recommended treatment.\nCranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) has been proposed as an alternative treatment for symptoms of depression. CES is a treatment in which a low intensity electrical current is administered to the head through the use of a small, portable electrical device. A sample treatment regimen might consist of daily application of the device for 30 minutes for a month, but treatment instructions vary with the device and condition being treated. In the United States CES devices require a prescription. In most other countries, marketing of CES devices is approved for stress reduction but not specific medical conditions such as depression."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8317
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn the treatment of urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, we are currently uncertain of the benefits and harms of standard pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) compared to extended PLND.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of extended versus standard PLND in patients undergoing cystectomy to treat muscle-invasive (cT2 and cT3) and treatment-refractory, non-muscle-invasive (cT1 with or without carcinoma in situ) urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive literature search using multiple databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and LILACS), trial registries, and conference proceedings published up to April 29, 2019, with no restrictions on the language or status of publication.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials in which participants underwent radical cystectomy (RC) for muscle-invasive or therapy-refractory non-muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder with either an extended PLND with a superior extent reaching as far cranially as the inferior mesenteric vein, or a standard PLND with a superior extent of the bifurcation of the internal and external iliac artery, with otherwise the same anatomical boundaries.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data from them for the primary outcomes: time to death from any cause, time to death from bladder cancer and Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications grade III-V, and the secondary outcomes: time to recurrence, Clavien-Dindo I-II complications and disease-specific quality of life.\nWe performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nThe search identified one multicenter trial based in Germany that enrolled 401 participants with histologically confirmed T1 grade 3 or muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. The median age was 67 years (range: 59 to 74) and the majority of participants were male (78.3%). No participant received neoadjuvant chemotherapy; a small subset received adjuvant chemotherapy (14.5%).\nPrimary outcomes\nOur results indicate that extended PLND may reduce the risk of death from any cause over time as compared to standard PLND, but the confidence interval includes the possibility of no effect (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57 to 1.07, 401 participants, low-certainty evidence). After five years of follow-up, this may result in 83 fewer deaths (95% CI: 174 fewer to 24 more overall deaths) per 1000 participants: 420 deaths for extended PLND compared to 503 deaths per 1000 for standard PLND. We downgraded the certainty of evidence by two levels due to study limitations and imprecision.\nOur results indicate that extended PLND may reduce the risk of death from bladder cancer over time as compared to standard PLND but, again, the confidence interval includes the possibility of no effect (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.07, participants = 401, low-certainty evidence). After five years of follow-up, this corresponds to 91 fewer deaths per 1000 participants (95% CI: 176 fewer to 19 more bladder cancer deaths): 264 deaths for extended PLND compared to 355 deaths per 1000 for standard PLND. We downgraded the certainty of evidence by two levels due to study limitations and imprecision.\nBased on follow-up of up to 30 days, we are uncertain whether extended PLND leads to more grade III-V complications as compared to standard PLND, because of study limitations and imprecision (risk ratio [RR]: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.52, participants = 401, very low-certainty evidence).\nSecondary outcomes\nWe are uncertain whether extended PLND reduces the risk of recurrence over time as compared to standard PLND, because of study limitations and imprecision (HR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.22, participants = 401, very low-certainty evidence).\nBased on follow-up of up to 30 days, we are uncertain whether extended PLND leads to similar grade I-II complications as compared to standard PLND because of study limitations and imprecision (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.19, participants = 401, very low-certainty evidence).\nWe found no trials that reported on disease-specific quality of life.\nAuthors' conclusions\nResults from a single trial indicate that extended PLND in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder may reduce death from any cause and death from bladder cancer over time; however, the results include the possibility of no effect. We are uncertain whether the risk of serious complications up to 30 days may be increased. We are also uncertain as to whether the risk of recurrence over time or the risk of minor complications up to 30 days changes. We were unable to conduct any of the preplanned subgroup analyses, in particular, analyses based on extended lymph node dissection templates, clinical tumor stage, and use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy that may be important effect modifiers. Important additional data is expected from a larger, ongoing trial that will also consider the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Inclusion of this trial in the meta-analysis may help address the issue of imprecision which was a common reason for downgrading the certainty of the evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The certainty of evidence for these findings was low or very low, meaning that the true outcomes may be very different from what this review found."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8318
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThere has been considerable interest in providing antenatal dietary and lifestyle advice for women with obesity or who are overweight during pregnancy, as a strategy to limit gestational weight gain and improve maternal and infant health. However, such antenatal interventions appear to have a modest effect on gestational weight gain and other clinical pregnancy and birth outcomes and additional strategies are required.\nMetformin is an oral insulin-sensitising medication that acts to decrease blood glucose concentrations. Metformin is commonly used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and polycystic ovarian syndrome, and is being used increasingly in the treatment of gestational diabetes, having been shown to result in decreased rates of caesarean birth and neonatal hypoglycaemia. Metformin may be an adjuvant therapy to current antenatal strategies in pregnant women with obesity or who are overweight, acting to reduce glucose production in the liver and improve glucose uptake in smooth muscle cells, and therefore improve the overall metabolic health of women in pregnancy and reduce the risk of known adverse pregnancy outcomes.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the role of metformin in pregnant women with obesity or who are overweight, on maternal and infant outcomes, including adverse effects of treatment and costs.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (11 October 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll published and unpublished randomised controlled trials evaluating metformin use (compared with placebo or no metformin) in women with obesity or who are overweight in pregnancy for improving outcomes, alone or in combination with other interventions were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included three studies which randomised women (1099) with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 (1 study) and 35 kg/m2 (2 studies), with outcomes available for 1034 participants. None of the studies assessed women with a BMI between 25 kg/m2and 29.9 kg/m2, therefore we could not assess the use of metformin in women considered overweight. We did not identify studies of metformin in combination with another treatment. Two other studies are ongoing.\nAll three included studies were randomised controlled trials and compared metformin with placebo, commencing early in the second trimester. Doses ranged from 500 mg twice daily to 3.0 g per day. All three studies (two in the UK, one in Egypt) included women attending hospitals for antenatal care.\nTwo studies were generally at a low risk of bias across the majority of domains. We assessed the third study as being at an unclear risk of selection bias, performance and detection bias due to insufficient information in the report. We assessed the trial as being at a low risk of attrition bias and other bias; we felt it was at a high risk of reporting bias.\nThe primary outcome for this review was infant birthweight large-for-gestational-age (> 90th centile for gestational age and infant sex). Women who received metformin or placebo had a similar risk of their baby being born large for his or her gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.30; 2 studies, 831 infants; high-quality evidence).\nWomen who received metformin may have a slightly lower gestational weight gain (mean difference (MD) -2.60 kg, 95% CI -5.29 to 0.10; 3 studies, 899 women; low-quality evidence).\nMetformin may make little or no difference in the risk of women developing gestational hypertension (average RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.94; 3 studies, 1040 women; low-quality evidence) or pre-eclampsia (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.09 to 6.28; 2 studies, 840 women; low-quality evidence). Metformin probably makes little or no difference in the risk of women developing gestational diabetes (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.19; 3 studies, 892 women; moderate-quality evidence).\nOne study of 400 women reported women receiving metformin were more likely to experience any adverse effect compared with women receiving placebo (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.08; 1 study, 400 women). Adverse effects included abdominal pain, diarrhoea, or headache. When considering individual side effects, women receiving metformin were more likely to experience diarrhoea than women receiving placebo (RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.14; 797 women; 2 studies, 797 women; high-quality evidence). No other important differences were identified between Metformin and placebo for other maternal secondary outcomes, including: caesarean birth, birth before 37 weeks of pregnancy, shoulder dystocia, perineal tear, or postpartum haemorrhage.\nIn terms of other infant outcomes, there was little or no difference in the infant birthweight (MD 6.39 g, 95% CI -81.15 to 93.92; 2 studies, 834 infants; high-quality evidence). There were no other important differences identified for other infant secondary outcomes in this review: hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar); hyperbilirubinaemia (jaundice); Apgar score less than 7 at five minutes; or stillbirth and neonatal death. Only one study reported admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), indicating similar rates of admission between women receiving metformin or placebo; no other admission data were reported to assess differences in costs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to support the use of metformin for women with obesity in pregnancy for improving maternal and infant outcomes. Metformin was, however, associated with increased risk of adverse effects, particularly diarrhoea. The quality of the evidence in this review varied from high to low, with downgrading decisions based on study limitations and inconsistency.\nThere were only a small number of studies included in this review. Furthermore, none of the included studies included women categorised as 'overweight' and no trials looked at metformin in combination with another treatment.\nFuture research is required in order to further evaluate the role of metformin therapy in pregnant women with obesity or who are overweight, as a strategy to improve maternal and infant health, alone or as an adjuvant to dietary and lifestyle advice.\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 (October 2017) and found three randomised controlled studies (1099 pregnant women) comparing metformin tablets with placebo (dummy) tablets taken by mouth from 10 to 20 weeks of pregnancy until birth. The studies involved women with obesity; we therefore could not assess the effect of metformin in women who are overweight.\nWomen who were given metformin or placebo during pregnancy had a similar risk of a baby being born large-for-gestational age (measured in weeks since last period). Metformin probably makes little or no difference in the risk of women developing gestational diabetes. Metformin may also have little or no difference in the risk of women developing gestational hypertension (high blood pressure) or pre-eclampsia.\nWomen who were given metformin may gain slightly less weight during pregnancy, but are more likely to experience diarrhoea. There were no other important differences identified for other maternal outcomes including, caesarean birth, giving birth before 37 weeks of pregnancy, shoulder dystocia (a birth complication where the baby’s shoulder gets stuck), perineal trauma (damage to the area between the woman’s vagina and the anus), or heavy bleeding after the baby has been born.\nBabies of women who were given metformin had similar birthweight to babies of women who were given placebo. We did not identify any other important differences for other infant outcomes of interest: hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar); hyperbilirubinaemia (jaundice); Apgar score at five minutes (a measure of newborn well-being); or death of the baby before or after being born. One study reported similar rates of admission to neonatal intensive care between groups."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8319
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHeparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an adverse drug reaction presenting as a prothrombotic disorder related to antibody-mediated platelet activation. It is a paradoxical immune reaction resulting in thrombin generation in vivo, which leads to a hypercoagulable state and the potential to initiate venous or arterial thrombosis. A number of factors are thought to influence the incidence of HIT including the type and preparation of heparin (unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)) and the heparin-exposed patient population, with the postoperative patient population at higher risk.\nAlthough LMWH has largely replaced UFH as a front-line therapy, there is evidence supporting a lack of superiority of LMWH compared with UFH regarding prevention of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism following surgery, and similar frequencies of bleeding have been described with LMWH and UFH. The decision as to which of these two preparations of heparin to use may thus be influenced by harmful effects such as HIT. We therefore sought to determine the relative impact of UFH and LMWH on HIT in postoperative patients receiving thromboembolism prophylaxis. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.\nObjectives\nThe objective of this review was to compare the incidence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism in postoperative patients exposed to unfractionated heparin (UFH) versus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH).\nSearch methods\nFor this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (May 2016), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4) and trials registries. The authors searched Lilacs (June 2016) and additional trials were sought from reference lists of relevant publications.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which participants were postoperative patients allocated to receive prophylaxis with UFH or LMWH, in a blinded or unblinded fashion. Studies were excluded if they did not use the accepted definition of HIT. This was defined as a relative reduction in the platelet count of 50% or greater from the postoperative peak (even if the platelet count at its lowest remained greater than 150 x 109/L) occurring within five to 14 days after the surgery, with or without a thrombotic event occurring in this timeframe. Additionally, we required circulating antibodies associated with the syndrome to have been investigated through laboratory assays.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Disagreements were resolved by consensus with participation of a third author.\nMain results\nIn this update, we included three trials involving 1398 postoperative participants. Participants were submitted to general surgical procedures, minor and major, and the minimum mean age was 49 years. Pooled analysis showed a significant reduction in the risk of HIT with LMWH compared with UFH (risk ratio (RR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.73); low-quality evidence. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 59. The risk of HIT was consistently reduced comparing participants undergoing major surgical procedures exposed to LMWH or UFH (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.75); low-quality evidence. The occurrence of HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism was significantly lower in participants receiving LMWH compared with UFH (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.84); low-quality evidence. The NNTB was 75. Arterial thrombosis occurred in only one participant who received UFH. There were no amputations or deaths documented. Although limited evidence is available, it appears that HIT induced by both types of heparins is common in people undergoing major surgical procedures (incidence greater than 1% and less than 10%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis updated review demonstrated low-quality evidence of a lower incidence of HIT, and HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism, in postoperative patients undergoing thromboprophylaxis with LMWH compared with UFH. Similarily, the risk of HIT in people undergoing major surgical procedures was lower when treated with LMWH compared to UFH (low-quality evidence). The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to concerns about the risk of bias in the included studies and imprecision of the study results. These findings may support current clinical use of LMWH over UFH as front-line heparin therapy. However, our conclusions are limited and there was an unexpected paucity of RCTs including HIT as an outcome. To address the scarcity of clinically-relevant information on HIT, HIT must be included as a core harmful outcome in future RCTs of heparin.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence gathered in this review was considered of low quality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence because we had concerns about the risk of bias in the included studies and imprecision of the results. It was possible that patient prognosis or clinicians' preferences influenced the allocation of participants to receive one or another medication. This process should be implemented by chance to allow a fair comparison between the therapies. We were not confident that staff implementing the trials were not aware of which treatment participants were receiving, and it was possible that the incomplete reporting of data could have affected the estimates. The detection of HIT throughout the trials was also problematic, and we were not confident that it was performed adequately. The results may be correct, but they may be changed by future research."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8320
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCarotid endarterectomy may significantly reduce the risk of stroke in people with recently symptomatic, severe carotid artery stenosis. However, there are significant perioperative risks that may be minimised by performing the operation under local rather than general anaesthetics. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1996, and previously updated in 2004, 2008, and 2013.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether carotid endarterectomy under local anaesthetic: 1) reduces the risk of perioperative stroke and death compared with general anaesthetic; 2) reduces the complication rate (other than stroke) following carotid endarterectomy; and 3) is acceptable to individuals and surgeons.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers (to February 2021). We also reviewed reference lists of articles identified.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of local anaesthetics to general anaesthetics for people having carotid endarterectomy were eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. We calculated a pooled Peto odds ratio (OR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for the following outcomes that occurred within 30 days of surgery: stroke, death, ipsilateral stroke, stroke or death, myocardial infarction, local haemorrhage, and arteries shunted.\nMain results\nWe included 16 RCTs involving 4839 participants, of which 3526 were obtained from the single largest trial (GALA). The main findings from our meta-analysis showed that, within 30 days of operation, neither incidence of stroke nor death were significantly different between local and general anaesthesia. Of these, the incidence of stroke in the local and general anaesthesia groups was 3.2% and 3.5%, respectively (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.26; P = 0.58; 13 studies, 4663 participants; low-quality evidence). The rate of ipsilateral stroke under both types of anaesthesia was 3.1% (Peto OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.48; P = 0.89; 2 studies, 3733 participants; low-quality evidence). The incidence of stroke or death in the local anaesthesia group was 3.5%, while stroke or death incidence was 4.1% in the general anaesthesia group (Peto OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.16; P = 0.31; 11 studies, 4391 participants; low-quality evidence). A lower rate of death was observed in the local anaesthetic group but evidence was of low quality (Peto OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.06; P = 0.08; 12 studies, 4421 participants).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe incidence of stroke and death were not convincingly different between local and general anaesthesia for people undergoing carotid endarterectomy. The current evidence supports the choice of either approach. Further high-quality studies are still needed as the evidence is of limited reliability.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to find out if using local anaesthetic for carotid endarterectomy:\n- lowers the risk of stroke and death around the time of the operation;\n- lowers the rate of other unwanted effects; and\n- is more acceptable to individuals and surgeons\nwhen compared to general anaesthetic."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8321
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRespiratory support is a central component of the management of critically ill children. It can be delivered invasively via an endotracheal tube or non-invasively via face mask, nasal mask, nasal cannula or oxygen hood/tent. Invasive ventilation can be damaging to the lungs, and the tendency to use non-invasive forms is growing. However, non-invasive delivery is often poorly tolerated by children. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen delivery is a relatively new therapy that shows the potential to reduce the need for intubation and be better tolerated by children than other non-invasive forms of support. HFNC therapy differs from other non-invasive forms of treatment in that it delivers heated, humidified and blended air/oxygen via nasal cannula at rates > 2 L/kg/min. This allows the user to deliver high concentrations of oxygen and to potentially deliver continuous distending pressure; this treatment often is better tolerated by the child.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether HFNC therapy is more effective than other forms of non-invasive therapy in paediatric patients who require respiratory support.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 4); MEDLINE via PubMed (January 1966 to April 2013); EMBASE (January 1980 to April 2013); CINAHL (1982 to April 2013); and LILACS (1982 to April 2013). Abstracts from conference proceedings, theses and dissertations and bibliographical references to relevant studies were also searched. We applied no restriction on language.\nSelection criteria\nWe planned to included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quas-randomized trials comparing HFNC therapy with other forms of non-invasive respiratory support for children. Non-invasive support encompassed cot, hood or tent oxygen; low-flow nasal cannulae (flow rates ≤ 2 L/min); and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) delivered via facial or nasal mask/cannula. Treatment failure was defined by the need for additional respiratory support. We excluded children with a diagnosis of bronchiolitis.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed all studies for selection and data extraction. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.\nMain results\nOur search yielded 922 records. A total of 109 relevant records were retrieved with reference to our search criteria. After duplicates and irrelevant studies were removed, 69 studies were further scrutinized. Of these, 11 studies involved children. No study matched our inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the results of this review, no evidence is available to allow determination of the safety or effectiveness of HFNC as a form of respiratory support in children.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Search date\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched medical databases from the 1950s until April 2013."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8322
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nHodgkin lymphoma (HL) is one of the most common haematological malignancies in young adults and, with cure rates of 90%, has become curable for the majority of individuals. Positron emission tomography (PET) is an imaging tool used to monitor a tumour’s metabolic activity, stage and progression. Interim PET during chemotherapy has been posited as a prognostic factor in individuals with HL to distinguish between those with a poor prognosis and those with a better prognosis. This distinction is important to inform decision-making on the clinical pathway of individuals with HL.\nObjectives\nTo determine whether in previously untreated adults with HL receiving first-line therapy, interim PET scan results can distinguish between those with a poor prognosis and those with a better prognosis, and thereby predict survival outcomes in each group.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and conference proceedings up until April 2019. We also searched one trial registry (ClinicalTrials.gov).\nSelection criteria\nWe included retrospective and prospective studies evaluating interim PET scans in a minimum of 10 individuals with HL (all stages) undergoing first-line therapy. Interim PET was defined as conducted during therapy (after one, two, three or four treatment cycles). The minimum follow-up period was at least 12 months. We excluded studies if the trial design allowed treatment modification based on the interim PET scan results.\nData collection and analysis\nWe developed a data extraction form according to the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS). Two teams of two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and PET-associated adverse events (AEs), assessed risk of bias (per outcome) according to the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool, and assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). We contacted investigators to obtain missing information and data.\nMain results\nOur literature search yielded 11,277 results. In total, we included 23 studies (99 references) with 7335 newly-diagnosed individuals with classic HL (all stages).\nParticipants in 16 studies underwent (interim) PET combined with computed tomography (PET-CT), compared to PET only in the remaining seven studies. The standard chemotherapy regimen included ABVD (16) studies, compared to BEACOPP or other regimens (seven studies). Most studies (N = 21) conducted interim PET scans after two cycles (PET2) of chemotherapy, although PET1, PET3 and PET4 were also reported in some studies. In the meta-analyses, we used PET2 data if available as we wanted to ensure homogeneity between studies. In most studies interim PET scan results were evaluated according to the Deauville 5-point scale (N = 12).\nEight studies were not included in meta-analyses due to missing information and/or data; results were reported narratively. For the remaining studies, we pooled the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR). The timing of the outcome measurement was after two or three years (the median follow-up time ranged from 22 to 65 months) in the pooled studies.\nEight studies explored the independent prognostic ability of interim PET by adjusting for other established prognostic factors (e.g. disease stage, B symptoms). We did not pool the results because the multivariable analyses adjusted for a different set of factors in each study.\nOverall survival\nTwelve (out of 23) studies reported OS. Six of these were assessed as low risk of bias in all of the first four domains of QUIPS (study participation, study attrition, prognostic factor measurement and outcome measurement). The other six studies were assessed as unclear, moderate or high risk of bias in at least one of these four domains. Four studies were assessed as low risk, and eight studies as high risk of bias for the domain other prognostic factors (covariates). Nine studies were assessed as low risk, and three studies as high risk of bias for the domain 'statistical analysis and reporting'.\nWe pooled nine studies with 1802 participants. Participants with HL who have a negative interim PET scan result probably have a large advantage in OS compared to those with a positive interim PET scan result (unadjusted HR 5.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.64 to 9.81, I² = 44%, moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute values, this means that 900 out of 1000 participants with a negative interim PET scan result will probably survive longer than three years compared to 585 (95% CI 356 to 757) out of 1000 participants with a positive result.\nAdjusted results from two studies also indicate an independent prognostic value of interim PET scan results (moderate-certainty evidence).\nProgression-free survival\nTwenty-one studies reported PFS. Eleven out of 21 were assessed as low risk of bias in the first four domains. The remaining were assessed as unclear, moderate or high risk of bias in at least one of the four domains. Eleven studies were assessed as low risk, and ten studies as high risk of bias for the domain other prognostic factors (covariates). Eight studies were assessed as high risk, thirteen as low risk of bias for statistical analysis and reporting.\nWe pooled 14 studies with 2079 participants. Participants who have a negative interim PET scan result may have an advantage in PFS compared to those with a positive interim PET scan result, but the evidence is very uncertain (unadjusted HR 4.90, 95% CI 3.47 to 6.90, I² = 45%, very low-certainty evidence). This means that 850 out of 1000 participants with a negative interim PET scan result may be progression-free longer than three years compared to 451 (95% CI 326 to 569) out of 1000 participants with a positive result.\nAdjusted results (not pooled) from eight studies also indicate that there may be an independent prognostic value of interim PET scan results (low-certainty evidence).\nPET-associated adverse events\nNo study measured PET-associated AEs.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review provides moderate-certainty evidence that interim PET scan results predict OS, and very low-certainty evidence that interim PET scan results predict progression-free survival in treated individuals with HL. This evidence is primarily based on unadjusted data. More studies are needed to test the adjusted prognostic ability of interim PET against established prognostic factors.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In 16 included studies, participants received either ABVD chemotherapy or BEACOPP chemotherapy (four studies) only, with or without radiotherapy. In 16 studies, participants underwent an interim PET scan in combination with a computed tomography (CT) (PET-CT), which have higher accuracy in detecting primary and secondary cancers than a PET scan alone. In the remaining seven studies, PET-only was conducted. Twenty-one studies conducted interim PET scans after two cycles (PET2) of chemotherapy.\nEight studies did not report enough data on our outcomes or population of interest, so we reported the results from these studies narratively. We combined individual study results in meta-analyses to provide robust evidence for our outcomes of interest overall survival and progression-free survival. No study measured PET-associated adverse events (harms).\nFor overall survival, combined results from nine studies (1802 participants) show that there is probably a large advantage in overall survival for people with a negative interim PET scan compared to people with a positive interim PET scan. For progression-free survival, combined results from 14 studies (2079 participants) show that interim PET-negative people may have an advantage for progression-free survival, compared to interim PET-positive people, but we are uncertain about this result. These are unadjusted results, where interim PET was tested as the only prognostic factor.\nEight studies reported adjusted results, where the independent prognostic ability of interim PET was assessed against other established prognostic factors (e.g. disease stage, B symptoms). We could not combine individual study results because the studies did not include identical sets of covariates. Nevertheless, their results indicate a probable independent prognostic ability of interim PET to predict both outcomes."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8323
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCommunity-based primary-level workers (PWs) are an important strategy for addressing gaps in mental health service delivery in low- and middle-income countries.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of PW-led treatments for persons with mental health symptoms in LMICs, compared to usual care.\nSearch methods\nMEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, reference lists (to 20 June 2019).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials of PW-led or collaborative-care interventions treating people with mental health symptoms or their carers in LMICs.\nPWs included: primary health professionals (PHPs), lay health workers (LHWs), community non-health professionals (CPs).\nData collection and analysis\nSeven conditions were identified apriori and analysed by disorder and PW examining recovery, prevalence, symptom change, quality-of-life (QOL), functioning, service use (SU), and adverse events (AEs).\nRisk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes; mean difference (MDs), standardised mean differences (SMDs), or mean change differences (MCDs) for continuous outcomes.\nFor SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥0.80 large clinical effects.\nAnalysis timepoints: T1 (<1 month), T2 (1-6 months), T3 ( >6 months) post-intervention.\nMain results\nDescription of studies\n95 trials (72 new since 2013) from 30 LMICs (25 trials from 13 LICs).\nRisk of bias\nMost common: detection bias, attrition bias (efficacy), insufficient protection against contamination.\nIntervention effects\n*Unless indicated, comparisons were usual care at T2.\n“Probably”, “may”, or “uncertain” indicates \"moderate\", \"low,\" or \"very low\" certainty evidence.\nAdults with common mental disorders (CMDs)\nLHW-led interventions\na. may increase recovery (2 trials, 308 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.56);\nb. may reduce prevalence (2 trials, 479 participants; RR 0.42, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.96);\nc. may reduce symptoms (4 trials, 798 participants; SMD -0.59, 95%CI -1.01 to -0.16);\nd. may improve QOL (1 trial, 521 participants; SMD 0.51, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.69);\ne. may slightly reduce functional impairment (3 trials, 1399 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.8 to -0.15);\nf. may reduce AEs (risk of suicide ideation/attempts);\ng. may have uncertain effects on SU.\nCollaborative-care\na. may increase recovery (5 trials, 804 participants; RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.50 to 3.43);\nb. may reduce prevalence although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (2 trials, 2820 participants; RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.32 to 1.01);\nc. may slightly reduce symptoms (6 trials, 4419 participants; SMD -0.35, 95%CI -0.63 to -0.08);\nd. may slightly improve QOL (6 trials, 2199 participants; SMD 0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.53);\ne. probably has little-to-no effect on functional impairment (5 trials, 4216 participants; SMD -0.13, 95%CI -0.28 to 0.03);\nf. may reduce SU (referral to MH specialists);\ng. may have uncertain effects on AEs (death).\nWomen with perinatal depression (PND)\nLHW-led interventions\na. may increase recovery (4 trials, 1243 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.08 to 1.54);\nb. probably slightly reduce symptoms (5 trials, 1989 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.37 to -0.14);\nc. may slightly reduce functional impairment (4 trials, 1856 participants; SMD -0.23, 95%CI -0.41 to -0.04);\nd. may have little-to-no effect on AEs (death);\ne. may have uncertain effects on SU.\nCollaborative-care\na. has uncertain effects on symptoms/QOL/SU/AEs.\nAdults with post-traumatic stress (PTS) or CMDs in humanitarian settings\nLHW-led interventions\na. may slightly reduce depression symptoms (5 trials, 1986 participants; SMD -0.36, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.15);\nb. probably slightly improve QOL (4 trials, 1918 participants; SMD -0.27, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.15);\nc. may have uncertain effects on symptoms (PTS)/functioning/SU/AEs.\nPHP-led interventions\na. may reduce PTS symptom prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 5.50, 95%CI 2.50 to 12.10) and depression prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 4.60, 95%CI 2.10 to 10.08);\nb. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.\nAdults with harmful/hazardous alcohol or substance use\nLHW-led interventions\na. may increase recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (4 trials, 872 participants; RR 1.28, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.74);\nb. may have little-to-no effect on the prevalence of methamphetamine use (1 trial, 882 participants; RR 1.01, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.13) and functional impairment (2 trials, 498 participants; SMD -0.14, 95%CI -0.32 to 0.03);\nc. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 667 participants; SMD -0.22, 95%CI -0.32 to -0.11);\nd. may have uncertain effects on SU/AEs.\nPHP/CP-led interventions\na. probably have little-to-no effect on recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 1075 participants; RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.12) or QOL (1 trial, 560 participants; MD 0.00, 95%CI -0.10 to 0.10);\nb. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol and substance use (2 trials, 705 participants; SMD -0.20, 95%CI -0.35 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence);\nc. may have uncertain effects on prevalence (cannabis use)/SU/AEs.\nPW-led interventions for alcohol/substance dependence\na. may have uncertain effects.\nAdults with severe mental disorders\n*Comparisons were specialist-led care at T1.\nLHW-led interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on caregiver burden (1 trial, 253 participants; MD -0.04, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.11);\nb. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.\nPHP-led or collaborative-care\na. may reduce functional impairment (7 trials, 874 participants; SMD -1.13, 95%CI -1.78 to -0.47);\nb. may have uncertain effects on recovery/relapse/symptoms/QOL/SU.\nAdults with dementia and carers\nPHP/LHW-led carer interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on the severity of behavioural symptoms in dementia patients (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.60 to 0.08);\nb. may reduce carers' mental distress (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.82 to -0.13);\nc. may have uncertain effects on QOL/functioning/SU/AEs.\nChildren with PTS or CMDs\nLHW-led interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on PTS symptoms (3 trials, 1090 participants; MCD -1.34, 95%CI -2.83 to 0.14);\nb. probably have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.61, 95%CI -1.23 to 0.02) or on functional impairment (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.81, 95%CI -1.48 to -0.13);\nc. may have little-or-no effect on AEs.\nCP-led interventions\na. may have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (2 trials, 602 participants; SMD -0.19, 95%CI -0.57 to 0.19) or on AEs;\nb. may have uncertain effects on recovery/symptoms(PTS)/functioning.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPW-led interventions show promising benefits in improving outcomes for CMDs, PND, PTS, harmful alcohol/substance use, and dementia carers in LMICs.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"7. Children in humanitarian settings with post-traumatic stress or depression and anxiety\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Treatments from lay health workers, compared to usual or no care:\na. may have little to no effect on post-traumatic stress symptoms;\nb. probably have little to no effect on depressive symptoms nor on day-to-day functioning; and\nc. may make little or no difference in risk of adverse events.\nTreatments from community professionals (teachers and social workers) compared to no care:\na. may have little to no effect on depressive symptoms; and\nb. may make little or no difference in adverse events."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8324
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis review replaces an earlier review, \"Methadone for chronic non-cancer pain in adults\". This review serves to update the original and includes only studies of neuropathic pain. Methadone belongs to a class of analgesics known as opioids, that are considered the cornerstone of therapy for moderate-to-severe postsurgical pain and pain due to life-threatening illnesses; however, their use in neuropathic pain is controversial. Methadone has many characteristics that differentiate it from other opioids, which suggests that it may have a different efficacy and safety profile.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases: CENTRAL (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid), and Embase (Ovid), and two clinical trial registries. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved articles. The date of the most recent search was 30 November 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks’ duration or longer, comparing methadone (in any dose, administered by any route, and in any formulation) with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. There were insufficient data to perform pooled analyses. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nWe included three studies, involving 105 participants. All were cross-over studies, one involving 19 participants with diverse neuropathic pain syndromes, the other two involving 86 participants with postherpetic neuralgia. Study phases ranged from 20 days to approximately eight weeks. All administered methadone orally, in doses ranging from 10 mg to 80 mg daily. Comparators were primarily placebo, but one study also included morphine and tricyclic antidepressants.\nThe included studies had several limitations related to risk of bias, particularly incomplete reporting, selective outcome reporting, and small sample sizes.\nThere were very limited data for our primary outcomes of participants with at least 30% or at least 50% pain relief. Two studies reported that 11/29 participants receiving methadone achieved 30% pain relief versus 7/29 participants receiving placebo. Only one study presented data in a manner that allowed us to calculate the number of participants with at least 50% pain relief. None of the 19 participants achieved a 50% reduction in pain intensity, either when receiving methadone or when receiving placebo. No study provided data for our other primary outcomes of Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC) much or very much improved (equivalent to at least 30% pain relief) and PGIC very much improved (equivalent to at least 50% pain relief).\nFor secondary efficacy outcomes, one study reported maximum and mean pain intensity and pain relief, and reported statistically significant improvements versus placebo for all outcomes with 20 mg daily doses of methadone, but not with 10 mg daily doses. The second study reported differences in pain reduction between methadone (n = 26) and morphine (n = 38) and found morphine to be statistically superior. The third study reported the number of responders (variously defined) for several pain and functional outcomes and found methadone to be statistically superior to placebo for the outcomes of categorical pain intensity and evoked pain. In the two studies that reported data, 0/29 participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy, whereas 4/29 participants withdrew due to adverse events while taking methadone versus 3/29 while taking placebo.\nOne study reported incidences for several individual adverse events, but found a statistically significant increased incidence for methadone over placebo for only one event, dizziness. The other studies did not report data in a manner that enabled us to analyze adverse events. There were no serious adverse events or deaths reported.\nWe assessed the quality of the evidence as very low for all efficacy and safety outcomes using GRADE, primarily because of the heterogeneity of study designs and populations, short durations, cross-over methodology, and few participants and events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe three studies provide very limited, very low quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of methadone for chronic neuropathic pain, and there were too few data for pooled analysis of efficacy or harm, or to have confidence in the results of the individual studies. No conclusions can be made regarding differences in efficacy or safety between methadone and placebo, other opioids, or other treatments.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Background\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Neuropathic pain is pain coming from a damaged nervous system. It is different from pain messages that are carried along healthy nerves from damaged tissue (e.g. from a fall or cut, or an arthritic knee). Neuropathic pain is often treated by different medicines (drugs) from those used for pain from damaged tissue, which we often think of as painkillers. There are different types of neuropathic pain, with different causes. Some medicines that are used to treat depression or epilepsy can be very effective in some people with neuropathic pain by altering the signal that is carried along nerves that transmit painful stimuli (something that results in a change in how the body works). Sometimes opioid painkillers are used to treat neuropathic pain. Opioid painkillers are drugs such as morphine. Morphine is derived from plants, but many opioids are also made by chemical synthesis rather than being extracted from plants. Methadone is one of these synthetic opioids. Methadone has many characteristics that make it different from other opioids, which may influence its effectiveness or the side effects that patients experience."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8325
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe majority of children who present with their first episode of nephrotic syndrome achieve remission with corticosteroid therapy. Children who fail to respond to corticosteroids in the first episode of nephrotic syndrome (initial resistance) or develop resistance after one or more responses to corticosteroids (delayed resistance) may be treated with immunosuppressive agents including calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) (cyclosporin or tacrolimus) and with non-immunosuppressive agents such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). However, response to these agents is limited so newer agents are being assessed for efficacy. This is an update of a review first published in 2004 and updated in 2006, 2010 and 2016.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of different interventions used in children with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome, who do not achieve remission following four weeks or more of daily corticosteroid therapy.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies to 17 September 2019 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were included if they compared different immunosuppressive agents or non-immunosuppressive agents with placebo, prednisone or other agent given orally or parenterally in children aged three months to 18 years with steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS). Studies, which enrolled children and adults but in which paediatric data could not be separated from adult data, were also included.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently searched the literature, determined study eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). For continuous outcomes, results were expressed as mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. Data were pooled using the random effects model. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nTwenty-five studies (1063 participants) were included. Fourteen studies were at low risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment. Five and 19 studies were at low risk of performance and detection bias. Fourteen, 14 and 13 studies were at low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias respectively.\nCyclosporin compared with placebo or no treatment may increase the number of participants who achieve complete remission (4 studies, 74 participants: RR 3.50, 95% CI 1.09 to 11.20) or complete or partial remission (4 studies, 74 children: RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.04 to 9.57) by 6 months (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether cyclosporin increases the likelihood of worsening hypertension or reduces the likelihood of end-stage kidney disease (very low certainty evidence).\nCNI compared with IV cyclophosphamide (CPA) may increase the number of participants with complete or partial remission at 3 to 6 months (2 studies, 156 children: RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.13) (low certainty evidence) and probably reduces the number with treatment failure (non response, serious infection, persistently elevated creatinine (1 study, 124 participants: RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.58) (moderate certainty evidence) with little or no increase in serious infections (1 study, 131 participants: RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.56) (moderate certainty evidence).\nTacrolimus compared with cyclosporin may make little or no difference to the number who achieve complete or partial remission (2 studies, 58 participants: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.25) (low certainty evidence) or in the number with worsening hypertension (2 studies, 58 participants: RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.15) (low certainty evidence).\nCyclosporin compared with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and dexamethasone probably makes little or no difference to the number who achieve complete or partial remission (1 study, 138 participants: RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.87 to 5.24) (moderate certainty evidence) and makes little or no difference to the number dying (1 study, 138 participants: RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.87 to 5.24) or with 50% reduction in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (1 study, 138 participants: RR 2.29, 95% CI 0.46 to 11.41) (low certainty evidence).\nAmong children, who have achieved complete remission, tacrolimus compared with MMF may increase the number of children who maintain complete or partial response for 12 months (1 study, 60 children: RR 2.01, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.07) (low certainty evidence).\nOral CPA with prednisone compared with prednisone alone may make little or no difference to the number who achieve complete remission (2 studies, 84 children: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.87) (low certainty evidence).\nIV CPA compared with oral CPA (2 studies, 61 children: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.85) and IV compared with oral CPA plus IV dexamethasone (1 study, 49 children: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.96) may make little or no difference to the number who achieve complete remission (low certainty evidence).\nIt is uncertain whether rituximab and cyclosporin compared with cyclosporin increases the likelihood of remission because the certainty of the evidence is very low.\nIt is uncertain whether adalimumab or galactose compared with conservative therapy increases the likelihood of remission because the certainty of the evidence is very low.\nTwo studies reported that ACEi may reduce proteinuria in children with SRNS. One study reported that the dual angiotensin II and endothelin Type A receptor antagonist, sparsentan, may reduce proteinuria more effectively than the angiotensin receptor blocker, irbesartan.\nAuthors' conclusions\nTo date RCTs have demonstrated that CNIs may increase the likelihood of complete or partial remission compared with placebo/no treatment or CPA. For other regimens assessed, it remains uncertain whether the interventions alter outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is low. Further adequately powered, well designed RCTs are needed to evaluate other regimens for children with idiopathic SRNS. Since SRNS represents a spectrum of diseases, future studies should enrol children from better defined groups of patients with SRNS.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register (up to 17 September 2019). Randomised controlled trials were included if they compared different immunosuppressive agents or non-immunosuppressive agents with placebo, prednisone or other agent in children with steroid resistant nephrotic syndrome. Studies of new treatments were included as these included children as well as adults."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8326
|
[
{
"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: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "In adult patients undergoing cancer surgery, what is the impact of exercise training versus usual care on fitness, safety, quality of life, fatigue (tiredness), and clinical outcomes?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8327
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCerebral palsy (CP) is a neurodevelopmental disorder resulting from an injury to the developing brain. It is the most common form of childhood disability with prevalence rates of between 1.5 and 3.8 per 1000 births reported worldwide. The primary impairments associated with CP include reduced muscle strength and reduced cardiorespiratory fitness, resulting in difficulties performing activities such as dressing, walking and negotiating stairs.\nExercise is defined as a planned, structured and repetitive activity that aims to improve fitness, and it is a commonly used intervention for people with CP. Aerobic and resistance training may improve activity (i.e. the ability to execute a task) and participation (i.e. involvement in a life situation) through their impact on the primary impairments of CP. However, to date, there has been no comprehensive review of exercise interventions for people with CP.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of exercise interventions in people with CP, primarily in terms of activity, participation and quality of life. Secondary outcomes assessed body functions and body structures. Comparators of interest were no treatment, usual care or an alternative type of exercise intervention.\nSearch methods\nIn June 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and four trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of children, adolescents and adults with CP. We included studies of aerobic exercise, resistance training, and 'mixed training' (a combination of at least two of aerobic exercise, resistance training and anaerobic training).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and potentially relevant full-text reports for eligibility; extracted all relevant data and conducted 'Risk of bias' and GRADE assessments.\nMain results\nWe included 29 trials (926 participants); 27 included children and adolescents up to the age of 19 years, three included adolescents and young adults (10 to 22 years), and one included adults over 20 years. Males constituted 53% of the sample. Five trials were conducted in the USA; four in Australia; two in Egypt, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and the UK; three in Greece; and one apiece in India, Italy, Norway, and South Africa.\nTwenty-six trials included people with spastic CP only; three trials included children and adolescents with spastic and other types of CP. Twenty-one trials included people who were able to walk with or without assistive devices, four trials also included people who used wheeled mobility devices in most settings, and one trial included people who used wheeled mobility devices only. Three trials did not report the functional ability of participants. Only two trials reported participants' manual ability. Eight studies compared aerobic exercise to usual care, while 15 compared resistance training and 4 compared mixed training to usual care or no treatment. Two trials compared aerobic exercise to resistance training. We judged all trials to be at high risk of bias overall.\nWe found low-quality evidence that aerobic exercise improves gross motor function in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.04, N = 65, 3 studies) and intermediate term (mean difference (MD) 12.96%, 95% CI 0.52% to 25.40%, N = 12, 1 study). Aerobic exercise does not improve gait speed in the short term (MD 0.09 m/s, 95% CI −0.11 m/s to 0.28 m/s, N = 82, 4 studies, very low-quality evidence) or intermediate term (MD −0.17 m/s, 95% CI −0.59 m/s to 0.24 m/s, N = 12, 1 study, low-quality evidence). No trial assessed participation or quality of life following aerobic exercise.\nWe found low-quality evidence that resistance training does not improve gross motor function (SMD 0.12, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.43, N = 164, 7 studies), gait speed (MD 0.03 m/s, 95% CI −0.02 m/s to 0.07 m/s, N = 185, 8 studies), participation (SMD 0.34, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.70, N = 127, 2 studies) or parent-reported quality of life (MD 12.70, 95% CI −5.63 to 31.03, n = 12, 1 study) in the short term. There is also low-quality evidence that resistance training does not improve gait speed (MD −0.03 m/s, 95% CI −0.17 m/s to 0.11 m/s, N = 84, 3 studies), gross motor function (SMD 0.13, 95% CI −0.30 to 0.55, N = 85, 3 studies) or participation (MD 0.37, 95% CI −6.61 to 7.35, N = 36, 1 study) in the intermediate term.\nWe found low-quality evidence that mixed training does not improve gross motor function (SMD 0.02, 95% CI −0.29 to 0.33, N = 163, 4 studies) or gait speed (MD 0.10 m/s, −0.07 m/s to 0.27 m/s, N = 58, 1 study) but does improve participation (MD 0.40, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.67, N = 65, 1 study) in the short-term.\nThere is no difference between resistance training and aerobic exercise in terms of the effect on gross motor function in the short term (SMD 0.02, 95% CI −0.50 to 0.55, N = 56, 2 studies, low-quality evidence).\nThirteen trials did not report adverse events, seven reported no adverse events, and nine reported non-serious adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe quality of evidence for all conclusions is low to very low. As included trials have small sample sizes, heterogeneity may be underestimated, resulting in considerable uncertainty relating to effect estimates. For children with CP, there is evidence that aerobic exercise may result in a small improvement in gross motor function, though it does not improve gait speed. There is evidence that resistance training does not improve gait speed, gross motor function, participation or quality of life among children with CP.\nBased on the evidence available, exercise appears to be safe for people with CP; only 55% of trials, however, reported adverse events or stated that they monitored adverse events. There is a need for large, high-quality, well-reported RCTs that assess the effectiveness of exercise in terms of activity and participation, before drawing any firm conclusions on the effectiveness of exercise for people with CP. Research is also required to determine if current exercise guidelines for the general population are effective and feasible for people with CP.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We judged the quality of evidence for all comparisons to be low or very low. All of the studies had small sample sizes. There were very few trials involving adults with CP or people with CP who could not walk, so our results may not apply to these groups of people. Few trials provided clear detail about the frequency, intensity and duration of exercise prescribed. Further research assessing the effectiveness of exercise for activity and participation is needed. Such research should determine if the amount and intensity of exercise prescribed to people with CP has an impact on its effectiveness, and whether current guidelines on exercise for the general population apply to people with CP."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8328
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThoracic trauma (TT) is common among people with multiple traumatic injuries. One of the injuries caused by TT is the loss of thoracic stability resulting from multiple fractures of the rib cage, otherwise known as flail chest (FC). A person with FC can be treated conservatively with orotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation (internal pneumatic stabilization) but may also undergo surgery to fix the costal fractures.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical stabilization compared with clinical management for people with FC.\nSearch methods\nWe ran the search on the 12 May 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE Classic and EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), ISI WOS (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S, and CPSI-SSH), and clinical trials registers. We also screened reference lists and contacted experts.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials of surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for people diagnosed with FC.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors selected relevant trials, assessed their risk of bias, and extracted data.\nMain results\nWe included three studies that involved 123 people. The methods used for blinding the participants and researchers to the treatment group were not reported, but as the comparison is surgical treatment with medical treatment this bias is hard to avoid. There was no description of concealment of the randomization sequence in two studies.\nAll three studies reported on mortality, and deaths occurred in two studies. There was no clear evidence of a difference in mortality between treatment groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 2.42); however, the analysis was underpowered to detect a difference between groups. Out of the 123 people randomized and treated, six people died; the causes of death were pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, mediastinitis, and septic shock.\nAmong people randomized to surgery, there were reductions in pneumonia (RR 0.36, 95% 0.15 to 0.85; three studies, 123 participants), chest deformity (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.67; two studies, 86 participants), and tracheostomy (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.02; two studies, 83 participants). Duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit stay (ICU), and length of hospital stay were measured in the three studies. Due to differences in reporting, we could not combine the results and have listed them separately. Chest pain, chest tightness, bodily pain, and adverse effects were each measured in one study.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere was some evidence from three small studies that showed surgical treatment was preferable to nonsurgical management in reducing pneumonia, chest deformity, tracheostomy, duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of ICU stay. Further well-designed studies with a sufficient sample size are required to confirm these results and to detect possible surgical effects on mortality.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched scientific databases for studies comparing surgical treatment with nonsurgical treatment in adults or children with flail chest."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8329
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDespite optimal medical treatment, including epilepsy surgery, many epilepsy patients have uncontrolled seizures. Since the 1970s interest has grown in invasive intracranial neurostimulation as a treatment for these patients. Intracranial stimulation includes both deep brain stimulation (DBS) (stimulation through depth electrodes) and cortical stimulation (subdural electrodes). This is an updated version of a previous Cochrane review published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of DBS and cortical stimulation for refractory epilepsy based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register on 29 September 2015, but it was not necessary to update this search, because records in the Specialized Register are included in CENTRAL. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11, 5 November 2016), PubMed (5 November 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (5 November 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (5 November 2016) and reference lists of retrieved articles. We also contacted device manufacturers and other researchers in the field. No language restrictions were imposed.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs comparing deep brain or cortical stimulation versus sham stimulation, resective surgery, further treatment with antiepileptic drugs or other neurostimulation treatments (including vagus nerve stimulation).\nData collection and analysis\nFour review authors independently selected trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted the relevant data and assessed trial quality and overall quality of evidence. The outcomes investigated were seizure freedom, responder rate, percentage seizure frequency reduction, adverse events, neuropsychological outcome and quality of life. If additional data were needed, the study investigators were contacted. Results were analysed and reported separately for different intracranial targets for reasons of clinical heterogeneity.\nMain results\nTwelve RCTs were identified, eleven of these compared one to three months of intracranial neurostimulation with sham stimulation. One trial was on anterior thalamic DBS (n = 109; 109 treatment periods); two trials on centromedian thalamic DBS (n = 20; 40 treatment periods), but only one of the trials (n = 7; 14 treatment periods) reported sufficient information for inclusion in the quantitative meta-analysis; three trials on cerebellar stimulation (n = 22; 39 treatment periods); three trials on hippocampal DBS (n = 15; 21 treatment periods); one trial on nucleus accumbens DBS (n = 4; 8 treatment periods); and one trial on responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (n = 191; 191 treatment periods). In addition, one small RCT (n = 6) compared six months of hippocampal DBS versus sham stimulation. Evidence of selective reporting was present in four trials and the possibility of a carryover effect complicating interpretation of the results could not be excluded in five cross-over trials without any or a sufficient washout period.\n\nModerate-quality evidence could not demonstrate statistically or clinically significant changes in the proportion of patients who were seizure-free or experienced a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (primary outcome measures) after one to three months of anterior thalamic DBS in (multi)focal epilepsy, responsive ictal onset zone stimulation in (multi)focal epilepsy patients and hippocampal DBS in (medial) temporal lobe epilepsy. However, a statistically significant reduction in seizure frequency was found for anterior thalamic DBS (mean difference (MD), -17.4% compared to sham stimulation; 95% confidence interval (CI) -31.2 to -1.0; high-quality evidence), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation (MD -24.9%; 95% CI -40.1 to -6.0; high-quality evidence) and hippocampal DBS (MD -28.1%; 95% CI -34.1 to -22.2; moderate-quality evidence). Both anterior thalamic DBS and responsive ictal onset zone stimulation do not have a clinically meaningful impact on quality life after three months of stimulation (high-quality evidence).\n\nElectrode implantation resulted in postoperative asymptomatic intracranial haemorrhage in 1.6% to 3.7% of the patients included in the two largest trials and 2.0% to 4.5% had postoperative soft tissue infections (9.4% to 12.7% after five years); no patient reported permanent symptomatic sequelae. Anterior thalamic DBS was associated with fewer epilepsy-associated injuries (7.4 versus 25.5%; P = 0.01) but higher rates of self-reported depression (14.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.02) and subjective memory impairment (13.8 versus 1.8%; P = 0.03); there were no significant differences in formal neuropsychological testing results between the groups. Responsive ictal-onset zone stimulation seemed to be well-tolerated with few side effects.The limited number of patients preclude firm statements on safety and tolerability of hippocampal DBS.\n\nWith regards to centromedian thalamic DBS, nucleus accumbens DBS and cerebellar stimulation, no statistically significant effects could be demonstrated but evidence is of only low to very low quality.\nAuthors' conclusions\nExcept for one very small RCT, only short-term RCTs on intracranial neurostimulation for epilepsy are available. Compared to sham stimulation, one to three months of anterior thalamic DBS ((multi)focal epilepsy), responsive ictal onset zone stimulation ((multi)focal epilepsy) and hippocampal DBS (temporal lobe epilepsy) moderately reduce seizure frequency in refractory epilepsy patients. Anterior thalamic DBS is associated with higher rates of self-reported depression and subjective memory impairment. There is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusive statements on the efficacy and safety of hippocampal DBS, centromedian thalamic DBS, nucleus accumbens DBS and cerebellar stimulation. There is a need for more, large and well-designed RCTs to validate and optimize the efficacy and safety of invasive intracranial neurostimulation treatments.\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": "More, larger and well-designed trials on intracranial electrical stimulation treatments are needed to validate and optimize its efficacy and safety and to compare this treatment to currently available treatments (for example, antiepileptic drugs or vagus nerve stimulation).\nThe evidence is current to 5 November 2016."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8330
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe introduction and advancement of enteral feeds for preterm or low birth weight infants is often delayed because of concerns that early full enteral feeding will not be well tolerated or may increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis. Early full enteral feeding, however, might increase nutrient intake and growth rates; accelerate intestinal physiological, metabolic, and microbiomic postnatal transition; and reduce the risk of complications associated with intravascular devices for fluid administration.\nObjectives\nTo determine how early full enteral feeding, compared with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds, affects growth and adverse events such as necrotising enterocolitis, in preterm or low birth weight infants.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Maternity & Infant Care Database Ovid, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials to October 2020.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials that compared early full enteral feeding with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds in preterm or low birth weight infants.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors separately assessed trial eligibility, evaluated trial quality, extracted data, and synthesised effect estimates using risk ratios (RR), risk differences, and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\nMain results\nWe included six trials. All were undertaken in the 2010s in neonatal care facilities in India. In total, 526 infants participated. Most were very preterm infants of birth weight between 1000 g and 1500 g. Trials were of good methodological quality, but a potential source of bias was that parents, clinicians, and investigators were not masked. The trials compared early full feeding (60 mL/kg to 80 mL/kg on day one after birth) with minimal enteral feeding (typically 20 mL/kg on day one) supplemented with intravenous fluids. Feed volumes were advanced daily as tolerated by 20 mL/kg to 30 mL/kg body weight to a target steady-state volume of 150 mL/kg to 180 mL/kg/day. All participating infants were fed preferentially with maternal expressed breast milk, with two trials supplementing insufficient volumes with donor breast milk and four supplementing with preterm formula.\nFew data were available to assess growth parameters. One trial (64 participants) reported a slower rate of weight gain (median difference –3.0 g/kg/day), and another (180 participants) reported a faster rate of weight gain in the early full enteral feeding group (MD 1.2 g/kg/day). We did not meta-analyse these data (very low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reported rate of head circumference growth. One trial reported that the mean z-score for weight at hospital discharge was higher in the early full enteral feeding group (MD 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; low-certainty evidence). Meta-analyses showed no evidence of an effect on necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.54; 6 trials, 522 participants; I² = 51%; very low-certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nTrials provided insufficient data to determine with any certainty how early full enteral feeding, compared with delayed or progressive introduction of enteral feeds, affects growth in preterm or low birth weight infants. We are uncertain whether early full enteral feeding affects the risk of necrotising enterocolitis because of the risk of bias in the trials (due to lack of masking), inconsistency, and imprecision.\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 assessed this evidence as being of low or very low quality because the included trials were small with some methodological weaknesses and their findings were inconsistent with each other. This means that further research is very likely to have an important impact on the estimates of effect and our confidence in the findings."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8331
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSupplementary oxygen is routinely administered to low-risk pregnant women during an elective caesarean section under regional anaesthesia; however, maternal and foetal outcomes have not been well established. This is an update of a review first published in 2013.\nObjectives\nThe primary objective was to determine whether supplementary oxygen given to low-risk term pregnant women undergoing elective caesarean section under regional anaesthesia can prevent maternal and neonatal desaturation. The secondary objective was to compare the mean values of maternal and neonatal blood gas levels between mothers who received supplementary oxygen and those who did not (control group).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, issue 11), MEDLINE (1948 to November 2014) and EMBASE (1980 to November 2014). The original search was first performed in February 2012. We reran the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE in February 2016. One potential new study of interest was added to the list of ‘Studies awaiting Classification' and will be incorporated into the formal review findings during the next review update.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of low-risk pregnant women undergoing an elective caesarean section under regional anaesthesia and compared outcomes with, and without, oxygen supplementation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data, assessed methodological quality and performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses.\nMain results\nWe found one new included study in this updated version. In total, our updated review includes 11 trials (with 753 participants). The low quality of evidence showed no significant differences in average Apgar scores at one minute (N = six trials, 519 participants; 95% confidence (CI) -0.16 to 0.31, P = 0.53) and at five minutes (N = six trials, 519 participants; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06, P = 0.98). None of the 11 trials reported maternal desaturation. The very low quality of evidence showed that in comparison to room air, women in labour receiving supplementary oxygen had higher maternal oxygen saturation (N = three trials, 209 participants), maternal PaO2 (oxygen pressure in the blood; N = six trials, 241 participants), UaPO2 (foetal umbilical arterial blood; N = eight trials, 504 participants; 95% CI 1.8 to 4.9, P < 0.0001) and UvPO2 (foetal umbilical venous blood; N = 10 trials, 683 participants). There was high heterogeneity among these outcomes. A subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in UaPO2 between the two intervention groups in low-risk studies, whereas the high-risk studies showed a benefit for the neonatal oxygen group.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOverall, we found no convincing evidence that giving supplementary oxygen to healthy term pregnant women during elective caesarean section under regional anaesthesia is either beneficial or harmful for either the mother or the foetus' short-term clinical outcome as assessed by Apgar scores. Although, there were significant higher maternal and neonatal blood gas values and markers of free radicals when extra oxygen was given, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the low grade quality of the evidence.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We reviewed the evidence about the effect of giving extra oxygen to pregnant women during planned caesarean section under epidural or spinal anaesthesia. (Epidural anaesthesia is when a drug is injected into the epidural space of the spinal cord; spinal anaesthesia is when a local anaesthetic is injected into the subarachnoid space)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8332
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with asthma may experience exacerbations, or 'attacks', during which their symptoms worsen and additional treatment is required. Written action plans sometimes advocate a short-term increase in the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at the first sign of an exacerbation to reduce the severity of the attack and to prevent the need for oral steroids or hospital admission.\nObjectives\nTo compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of increased versus stable doses of ICS as part of a patient-initiated action plan for the home management of exacerbations in children and adults with persistent asthma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, which is derived from searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and handsearched abstracts to 20 December 2021. We also searched major trial registries for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that allocated people with persistent asthma to take a blinded inhaler in the event of an exacerbation which either increased their daily dose of ICS or kept it stable (placebo).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. We reassessed risk of bias for all studies at the result level using the revised risk of bias tool for RCTs (Risk of Bias 2), and employed the GRADE approach to assess our confidence in the synthesised effect estimates. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for rescue oral steroids in the randomised population. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure in the subset who initiated the study inhaler (treated population), unscheduled physician visits, unscheduled acute care, emergency department or hospital visits, serious and non-serious adverse events, and duration of exacerbation.\nMain results\nThis review update added a new study that increased the number of people in the primary analysis from 1520 to 1774, and incorporates the most up-to-date methods to assess the likely impact of bias within the meta-analyses. The updated review now includes nine RCTs (1923 participants; seven parallel and two cross-over) conducted in Europe, North America, and Australasia and published between 1998 and 2018. Five studies evaluated adult populations (n = 1247; ≥ 15 years), and four studies evaluated child or adolescent populations (n = 676; < 15 years). All study participants had mild to moderate asthma. Studies varied in the dose of maintenance ICS, age, fold increase of ICS in the event of an exacerbation, criteria for initiating the study inhaler, and allowed medications. Approximately 50% of randomised participants initiated the study inhaler (range 23% to 100%), and the included studies reported treatment failure in a variety of ways, meaning assumptions were required to permit the combining of data.\nParticipants randomised to increase their ICS dose at the first signs of an exacerbation had similar odds of needing rescue oral corticosteroids to those randomised to a placebo inhaler (odds ratio (OR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.25; 8 studies; 1774 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We could draw no firm conclusions from subgroup analyses conducted to investigate the impact of age, time to treatment initiation, baseline dose, smoking history, and fold increase of ICS on the primary outcome. Results for the same outcome in the subset of participants who initiated the study inhaler were unchanged from the previous version, which provides a different point estimate with very low confidence due to heterogeneity, imprecision, and risk of bias (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; 7 studies; 766 participants; I2 = 42%; random-effects model). Confidence was reduced due to risk of bias and assumptions that had to be made to include study data in the intention-to-treat and treated-population analyses. Sensitivity analyses that tested the impact of assumptions made for synthesis and to exclude cross-over studies, studies at overall high risk of bias, and those with commercial funding did not change our conclusions.\nPooled effects for unscheduled physician visits, unscheduled acute care, emergency department or hospital visits, and duration of exacerbation made it very difficult to determine where the true effect may lie, and confidence was reduced by risk of bias. Point estimates for both serious and non-serious adverse events favoured keeping ICS stable, but imprecision and risk of bias due to missing data and outcome measurement and reporting reduced our confidence in the effects (serious adverse events: OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.77 to 3.71; 2 studies; 394 participants; I² = 0%; non-serious adverse events: OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.68 to 6.73; 2 studies; 142 participants; I² = 0%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nEvidence from double-blind trials of adults and children with mild to moderate asthma suggests there is unlikely to be an important reduction in the need for oral steroids from increasing a patient's ICS dose at the first sign of an exacerbation. Other clinically important benefits and potential harms of increased doses of ICS compared with keeping the dose stable cannot be ruled out due to wide confidence intervals, risk of bias in the trials, and assumptions that had to be made for synthesis. Included studies conducted between 1998 and 2018 reflect evolving clinical practice and study methods, and the data do not support thorough investigation of effect modifiers such as baseline dose, fold increase, asthma severity and timing. The review does not include recent evidence from pragmatic, unblinded studies showing benefits of larger dose increases in those with poorly controlled asthma. A systematic review is warranted to examine the differences between the blinded and unblinded trials using robust methods for assessing risk of bias to present the most complete view of the evidence for decision makers.\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 looked at whether increasing the dose of inhaled corticosteroids when asthma symptoms worsen reduces the need for further treatment, and if there are any harms with doing so."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8333
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGlobally, children under 15 years represent approximately 12% of new tuberculosis cases, but 16% of the estimated 1.4 million deaths. This higher share of mortality highlights the urgent need to develop strategies to improve case detection in this age group and identify children without tuberculosis disease who should be considered for tuberculosis preventive treatment. One such strategy is systematic screening for tuberculosis in high-risk groups.\nObjectives\nTo estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the presence of one or more tuberculosis symptoms, or symptom combinations; chest radiography (CXR); Xpert MTB/RIF; Xpert Ultra; and combinations of these as screening tests for detecting active pulmonary childhood tuberculosis in the following groups.\n– Tuberculosis contacts, including household contacts, school contacts, and other close contacts of a person with infectious tuberculosis.\n– Children living with HIV.\n– Children with pneumonia.\n– Other risk groups (e.g. children with a history of previous tuberculosis, malnourished children).\n– Children in the general population in high tuberculosis burden settings.\nSearch methods\nWe searched six databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase, on 14 February 2020 without language restrictions and contacted researchers in the field.\nSelection criteria\nCross-sectional and cohort studies where at least 75% of children were aged under 15 years. Studies were eligible if conducted for screening rather than diagnosing tuberculosis. Reference standards were microbiological (MRS) and composite reference standard (CRS), which may incorporate symptoms and CXR.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using QUADAS-2. We consolidated symptom screens across included studies into groups that used similar combinations of symptoms as follows: one or more of cough, fever, or poor weight gain and one or more of cough, fever, or decreased playfulness. For combination of symptoms, a positive screen was the presence of one or more than one symptom.\nWe used a bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and performed analyses separately by reference standard. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nNineteen studies assessed the following screens: one symptom (15 studies, 10,097 participants); combinations of symptoms (12 studies, 29,889 participants); CXR (10 studies, 7146 participants); and Xpert MTB/RIF (2 studies, 787 participants). Several studies assessed more than one screening test. No studies assessed Xpert Ultra. For 16 studies (84%), risk of bias for the reference standard domain was unclear owing to concern about incorporation bias. Across other quality domains, risk of bias was generally low.\nSymptom screen (verified by CRS)\nOne or more of cough, fever, or poor weight gain in tuberculosis contacts (4 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 2% to 13%): pooled sensitivity was 89% (95% CI 52% to 98%; 113 participants; low-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 69% (95% CI 51% to 83%; 2582 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 children where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 339 would be screen-positive, of whom 294 (87%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positives); 661 would be screen-negative, of whom five (1%) would have pulmonary tuberculosis (false negatives).\nOne or more of cough, fever, or decreased playfulness in children aged under five years, inpatient or outpatient (3 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 3% to 13%): sensitivity ranged from 64% to 76% (106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and specificity from 37% to 77% (2339 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 children where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 251 to 636 would be screen-positive, of whom 219 to 598 (87% to 94%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 364 to 749 would be screen-negative, of whom 12 to 18 (2% to 3%) would have pulmonary tuberculosis.\nOne or more of cough, fever, poor weight gain, or tuberculosis close contact (World Health Organization four-symptom screen) in children living with HIV, outpatient (2 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 3% and 8%): pooled sensitivity was 61% (95% CI 58% to 64%; 1219 screens; moderate-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 94% (95% CI 86% to 98%; 201,916 screens; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 symptom screens where 50 of the screens are on children with pulmonary tuberculosis, 88 would be screen-positive, of which 57 (65%) would be on children who do not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 912 would be screen-negative, of which 19 (2%) would be on children who have pulmonary tuberculosis.\nCXR (verified by CRS)\nCXR with any abnormality in tuberculosis contacts (8 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 2% to 25%): pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI 75% to 93%; 232 participants; low-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 99% (95% CI 68% to 100%; 3281 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 children, where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 63 would be screen-positive, of whom 19 (30%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 937 would be screen-negative, of whom 6 (1%) would have pulmonary tuberculosis.\nXpert MTB/RIF (verified by MRS)\nXpert MTB/RIF, inpatient or outpatient (2 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 1% and 4%): sensitivity was 43% and 100% (16 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and specificity was 99% and 100% (771 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 children, where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 31 to 69 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive, of whom 9 to 19 (28% to 29%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 931 to 969 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative, of whom 0 to 28 (0% to 3%) would have tuberculosis.\nStudies often assessed more symptoms than those included in the index test and symptom definitions varied. These differences complicated data aggregation and may have influenced accuracy estimates. Both symptoms and CXR formed part of the CRS (incorporation bias), which may have led to overestimation of sensitivity and specificity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that in children who are tuberculosis contacts or living with HIV, screening tests using symptoms or CXR may be useful, but our review is limited by design issues with the index test and incorporation bias in the reference standard.\nFor Xpert MTB/RIF, we found insufficient evidence regarding screening accuracy.\nProspective evaluations of screening tests for tuberculosis in children will help clarify their use. In the meantime, screening strategies need to be pragmatic to address the persistent gaps in prevention and case detection that exist in resource-limited settings.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Who do the results of this review apply to?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Children at risk for pulmonary tuberculosis. Results likely do not apply to children in the general population. Studies mainly took place in countries with a high burden of tuberculosis."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8334
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nStevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and SJS/TEN overlap syndrome are rare, severe cutaneous adverse reactions usually triggered by medications. In addition to tertiary-level supportive care, various systemic therapies have been used including glucocorticoids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIGs), cyclosporin, N-acetylcysteine, thalidomide, infliximab, etanercept, and plasmapheresis. There is an unmet need to understand the efficacy of these interventions.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of systemic therapies (medicines delivered orally, intramuscularly, or intravenously) for the treatment of SJS, TEN, and SJS/TEN overlap syndrome.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases up to March 2021: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched five clinical trial registers, the reference lists of all included studies and of key review articles, and a number of drug manufacturer websites. We searched for errata or retractions of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational comparative studies of participants of any age with a clinical diagnosis of SJS, TEN, or SJS/TEN overlap syndrome. We included all systemic therapies studied to date and permitted comparisons between each therapy, as well as between therapy and placebo.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures as specified by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were SJS/TEN-specific mortality and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of SJS/TEN therapy. Secondary outcomes included time to complete re-epithelialisation, intensive care unit length of stay, total hospital length of stay, illness sequelae, and other adverse effects attributed to systemic therapy. We rated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies with a total of 308 participants (131 males and 155 females) from seven countries. We included two studies in the quantitative meta-analysis.\nWe included three RCTs and six prospective, controlled observational studies. Sample sizes ranged from 10 to 91. Most studies did not report study duration or time to follow-up. Two studies reported a mean SCORe of Toxic Epidermal Necrosis (SCORTEN) of 3 and 1.9. Seven studies did not report SCORTEN, although four of these studies reported average or ranges of body surface area (BSA) (means ranging from 44% to 51%). Two studies were set in burns units, two in dermatology wards, one in an intensive care unit, one in a paediatric ward, and three in unspecified inpatient units. Seven studies reported a mean age, which ranged from 29 to 56 years. Two studies included paediatric participants (23 children).\nWe assessed the results from one of three RCTs as low risk of bias in all domains, one as high, and one as some concerns. We judged the results from all six prospective observational comparative studies to be at a high risk of bias. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of serious risk of bias concerns and for imprecision due to small numbers of participants.\nThe interventions assessed included systemic corticosteroids, tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors, cyclosporin, thalidomide, N-acetylcysteine, IVIG, and supportive care. No data were available for the main comparisons of interest as specified in the review protocol: etanercept versus cyclosporin, etanercept versus IVIG, IVIG versus supportive care, IVIG versus cyclosporin, and cyclosporin versus corticosteroids.\nCorticosteroids versus no corticosteroids\nIt is uncertain if there is any difference between corticosteroids (methylprednisolone 4 mg/kg/day for two more days after fever had subsided and no new lesions had developed) and no corticosteroids on disease-specific mortality (risk ratio (RR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 9.03; 2 studies; 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to complete re-epithelialisation, length of hospital stay, and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were not reported.\nIVIG versus no IVIG\nIt is uncertain if there is any difference between IVIG (0.2 to 0.5 g/kg cumulative dose over three days) and no IVIG in risk of disease-specific mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.91); time to complete re-epithelialisation (mean difference (MD) −2.93 days, 95% CI −4.4 to −1.46); or length of hospital stay (MD −2.00 days, 95% CI −5.81 to 1.81). All results in this comparison were based on one study with 36 participants, and very low-certainty evidence. Adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were not reported.\nEtanercept (TNF-alpha inhibitor) versus corticosteroids\nEtanercept (25 mg (50 mg if weight > 65 kg) twice weekly \"until skin lesions healed\") may reduce disease-specific mortality compared to corticosteroids (intravenous prednisolone 1 to 1.5 mg/kg/day \"until skin lesions healed\") (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.63; 1 study; 91 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, the CIs were consistent with possible benefit and possible harm. Serious adverse events, such as sepsis and respiratory failure, were reported in 5 of 48 participants with etanercept and 9 of 43 participants with corticosteroids, but it was not clear if they led to discontinuation of therapy. Time to complete re-epithelialisation and length of hospital stay were not reported.\nCyclosporin versus IVIG\nIt is uncertain if there is any difference between cyclosporin (3 mg/kg/day or intravenous 1 mg/kg/day until complete re-epithelialisation, then tapered off (10 mg/day reduction every 48 hours)) and IVIG (continuous infusion 0.75 g/kg/day for 4 days (total dose 3 g/kg) in participants with normal renal function) in risk of disease-specific mortality (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98, 1 study; 22 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Time to complete re-epithelialisation, length of hospital stay, and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were not reported.\nNo studies measured intensive care unit length of stay.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhen compared to corticosteroids, etanercept may result in mortality reduction. For the following comparisons, the certainty of the evidence for disease-specific mortality is very low: corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids, IVIG versus no IVIG and cyclosporin versus IVIG. There is a need for more multicentric studies, focused on the most important clinical comparisons, to provide reliable answers about the best treatments for SJS/TEN.\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 not confident in our results because they came from few studies with small numbers of participants. In most studies, the way in which the studies were conducted could have influenced the findings of the study."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8335
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic pain (pain lasting three months or more) is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage. Common types (excluding headache) include back pain, fibromyalgia, and neuropathic pain. Access to traditional face-to-face therapies can be restricted by healthcare resources, geography, and cost. Remote technology-based delivery of psychological therapies has the potential to overcome treatment barriers. However, their therapeutic effectiveness compared to traditional delivery methods requires further investigation.\nObjectives\nTo determine the benefits and harms of remotely-delivered psychological therapies compared to active control, waiting list, or treatment as usual for the management of chronic pain in adults.\nSearch methods\nWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 29 June 2022. We also searched clinical trials registers and reference lists. We conducted a citation search of included trials to identify any further eligible trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs in adults (≥ 18 years old) with chronic pain. Interventions included psychological therapies with recognisable psychotherapeutic content or based on psychological theory. Trials had to have delivered therapy remote from the therapist (e.g. Internet, smartphone application) and involve no more than 30% contact time with a clinician. Comparators included treatment as usual (including waiting-list controls) and active controls (e.g. education).\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.\nMain results\nWe included 32 trials (4924 participants) in the analyses. Twenty-five studies delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) to participants, and seven delivered acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Participants had back pain, musculoskeletal pain, opioid-treated chronic pain, mixed chronic pain, hip or knee osteoarthritis, spinal cord injury, fibromyalgia, provoked vestibulodynia, or rheumatoid arthritis. We assessed 25 studies as having an unclear or high risk of bias for selective reporting. However, across studies overall, risk of bias was generally low. We downgraded evidence certainty for primary outcomes for inconsistency, imprecision, and study limitations. Certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Adverse events were inadequately reported or recorded across studies. We report results only for studies in CBT here.\nCognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus treatment as usual (TAU)\nPain intensity\nImmediately after treatment, CBT likely demonstrates a small beneficial effect compared to TAU (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.39 to -0.16; 20 studies, 3206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants receiving CBT are probably more likely to achieve a 30% improvement in pain intensity compared to TAU (23% versus 11%; risk ratio (RR) 2.15, 95% CI 1.62 to 2.85; 5 studies, 1347 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They may also be more likely to achieve a 50% improvement in pain intensity (6% versus 2%; RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.66; 4 studies, 1229 participants), but the evidence is of low certainty.\nAt follow-up, there is likely little to no difference in pain intensity between CBT and TAU (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.09; 8 studies, 959 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence comparing CBT to TAU on achieving a 30% improvement in pain is very uncertain (40% versus 24%; RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.53; 1 study, 69 participants). No evidence was available regarding a 50% improvement in pain.\nFunctional disability\nImmediately after treatment, CBT may demonstrate a small beneficial improvement compared to TAU (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.22; 14 studies, 2672 participants; low-certainty evidence). At follow-up, there is likely little to no difference between treatments (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.14; 3 studies, 461 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nQuality of life\nImmediately after treatment, CBT may not have resulted in a beneficial effect on quality of life compared to TAU, but the evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.11; 7 studies, 1423 participants). There is likely little to no difference between CBT and TAU on quality of life at follow-up (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.05; 3 studies, 352 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAdverse events\nImmediately after treatment, evidence about the number of people experiencing adverse events is very uncertain (34% in TAU versus 6% in CBT; RR 6.00, 95% CI 2.2 to 16.40; 1 study, 140 participants). No evidence was available at follow-up.\nCognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus active control\nPain intensity\nImmediately after treatment, CBT likely demonstrates a small beneficial effect compared to active control (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.04; 3 studies, 261 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence at follow-up is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.30; 1 study, 127 participants). No evidence was available for a 30% or 50% pain intensity improvement.\nFunctional disability\nImmediately after treatment, there may be little to no difference between CBT and active control on functional disability (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.02; 2 studies, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence at follow-up is very uncertain (MD 3.40, 95% CI -1.15 to 7.95; 1 study, 127 participants).\nQuality of life\nImmediately after treatment, there is likely little to no difference in CBT and active control (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.66; 3 studies, 261 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence at follow-up is very uncertain (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 1 study, 127 participants).\nAdverse events\nImmediately after treatment, the evidence comparing CBT to active control is very uncertain (2% versus 0%; RR 3.23, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.84; 1 study, 135 participants). No evidence was available at follow-up.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrently, evidence about remotely-delivered psychological therapies is largely limited to Internet-based delivery of CBT. We found evidence that remotely-delivered CBT has small benefits for pain intensity (moderate certainty) and functional disability (moderate to low certainty) in adults experiencing chronic pain. Benefits were not maintained at follow-up. Our appraisal of quality of life and adverse events outcomes post-treatment were limited by study numbers, evidence certainty, or both. We found limited research (mostly low to very low certainty) exploring other psychological therapies (i.e. ACT). More high-quality studies are needed to assess the broad translatability of psychological therapies to remote delivery, the different delivery technologies, treatment longevity, comparison with active control, and adverse events.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we find?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found 32 studies that included 4924 people with a range of chronic pain conditions, such as back pain, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, and rheumatoid arthritis. Average ages ranged from 24 to 67 years. Where those taking part were followed up after treatment ended, this follow-up was between 3 and 12 months later; we did not include results collected after 12 months. Studies included in the review were carried out across 11 countries, with over half attributable to Sweden (9), the USA (6), and Australia (5). All studies were funded by government grants or charities, bar one study that did not state its funding source.\nStudies investigated treatments based on the psychological therapies of CBT (25 studies) and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT; 7 studies). One of the CBT studies included an additional group who received a positive psychology intervention. All therapies were delivered online, except one study using a smartphone app."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8336
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nProper sedation for neonates undergoing uncomfortable procedures may reduce stress and avoid complications. Midazolam is a short-acting benzodiazepine that is used increasingly in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). However, its effectiveness as a sedative in neonates has not been systematically evaluated.\nObjectives\nPrimary objecive\nTo assess the effectiveness of intravenous midazolam infusion for sedation, as evaluated by behavioural and/or physiological measurements of sedation levels, in critically ill neonates in the NICU.\nSecondary objectives\nTo assess effects of intravenous midazolam infusion for sedation on complications including the following.\n1. Incidence of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH)/periventricular leukomalacia (PVL).\n2. Mortality.\n3. Occurrence of adverse effects associated with the use of midazolam (hypotension, neurological abnormalities).\n4. Days of ventilation.\n5. Days of supplemental oxygen.\n6. Incidence of pneumothorax.\n7. Length of NICU stay (days).\n8. Long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 16 June 2016), Embase (1980 to 16 June 2016) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 16 June 2016). We searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected for review randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of intravenous midazolam infusion for sedation in infants aged 28 days or younger.\nData collection and analysis\nWe abstracted data regarding the primary outcome of level of sedation. We assessed secondary outcomes such as intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, death, length of NICU stay and adverse effects associated with midazolam. When appropriate, we performed meta-analyses using risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs), and if the RD was statistically significant, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), along with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for categorical variables, and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous variables. We assessed heterogeneity by performing the I-squared (I2) test.\nMain results\nWe included in the review three trials enrolling 148 neonates. We identified no new trials for this update. Using different sedation scales, each study showed a statistically significantly higher sedation level in the midazolam group compared with the placebo group. However, none of the sedation scales used have been validated in preterm infants; therefore, we could not ascertain the effectiveness of midazolam in this population. Duration of NICU stay was significantly longer in the midazolam group than in the placebo group (WMD 5.4 days, 95% CI 0.40 to 10.5; I2 = 0%; two studies, 89 infants). One study (43 infants) reported significantly lower Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) scores during midazolam infusion than during dextrose (placebo) infusion (MD -3.80, 95% CI -5.93 to -1.67). Another study (46 infants) observed a higher incidence of adverse neurological events at 28 days' postnatal age (death, grade III or IV IVH or PVL) in the midazolam group compared with the morphine group (RR 7.64, 95% CI 1.02 to 57.21; RD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; NNTH 4, 95% CI 2 to 14) (tests for heterogeneity not applicable). We considered these trials to be of moderate quality according to GRADE assessment based on the following outcomes: mortality during hospital stay, length of NICU stay, adequacy of analgesia according to PIPP scores and poor neurological outcomes by 28 days' postnatal age.\nAuthors' conclusions\nData are insufficient to promote the use of intravenous midazolam infusion as a sedative for neonates undergoing intensive care. This review raises concerns about the safety of midazolam in neonates. Further research on the effectiveness and safety of midazolam in neonates is needed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "For sick babies admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), how effective is midazolam, given by continuous intravenous drip, as a sedative for reducing stress, as measured by changes in behaviour and vital signs?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8337
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRoot canal therapy is a sequence of treatments involving root canal cleaning, shaping, decontamination, and obturation. It is conventionally performed through a hole drilled into the crown of the affected tooth, namely orthograde root canal therapy. When it fails, retrograde filling, which seals the root canal from the root apex, is a good alternative. Many materials are used for retrograde filling. Since none meets all the criteria an ideal material should possess, selecting the most efficacious material is of utmost importance. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2016.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effects of different materials used for retrograde filling in children and adults for whom retrograde filling is necessary in order to save the tooth.\nSearch methods\nAn Information Specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 21 April 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. We also searched four databases in the Chinese language.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different retrograde filling materials, with the reported success rate that was assessed by clinical or radiological methods for which the follow-up period was at least 12 months.\nData collection and analysis\nRecords were screened in duplicate by independent screeners. Two review authors extracted data independently and in duplicate. Original trial authors were contacted for any missing information. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We followed Cochrane's statistical guidelines and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included eight studies, all at high risk of bias, involving 1399 participants with 1471 teeth, published between 1995 and 2019, and six comparisons of retrograde filling materials.\n- Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) versus intermediate restorative material (IRM): there may be little to no effect of MTA compared to IRM on success rate at one year, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.22; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 222 teeth; very low-certainty evidence).\n- MTA versus super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA): there may be little to no effect of MTA compared to Super-EBA on success rate at one year, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.10; 1 study; 192 teeth; very low-certainty evidence).\n- Super-EBA versus IRM: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of Super-EBA compared with IRM on success rate at 1 year, with results indicating Super-EBA may reduce or have no effect on success rate (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; 1 study; 194 teeth; very low-certainty evidence).\n- Dentine-bonded resin composite versus glass ionomer cement: compared to glass ionomer cement, dentine-bonded resin composite may increase the success rate of the treatment at 1 year, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.59; 1 study; 122 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Same result was obtained when considering the root as unit of analysis at one year (RR 1.59, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.09; 1 study; 127 roots; very low-certainty evidence).\n- Glass ionomer cement versus amalgam: the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of glass ionomer cement compared with amalgam on success rate at one year, with results indicating glass ionomer cement may reduce or have no effect on success rate (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12; 1 study; 105 teeth; very low-certainty evidence).\n- MTA versus root repair material (RRM): there may be little to no effect of MTA compared to RRM on success rate at one year, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 278 teeth; very low-certainty evidence).\nAdverse events were not assessed by any of the included studies.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on the present limited evidence, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion as to the benefits of any one material over another for retrograde filling in root canal therapy. We conclude that more high-quality RCTs are required.\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": "- Due to a lack of robust evidence, the benefits and risks of different materials used for retrograde filling in root canal therapy are unclear.\n- The evidence is not robust enough to determine which material is best to use in retrograde filling.\n- We need future studies to strengthen the evidence."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8338
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDementia, a global health priority, has no current cure. Around 50 million people worldwide currently live with dementia, and this number is expected to treble by 2050. Some health conditions and lifestyle behaviours can increase or decrease the risk of dementia and are known as 'predictors'. Prognostic models combine such predictors to measure the risk of future dementia. Models that can accurately predict future dementia would help clinicians select high-risk adults in middle age and implement targeted risk reduction.\nObjectives\nOur primary objective was to identify multi-domain prognostic models used in middle-aged adults (aged 45 to 65 years) for predicting dementia or cognitive impairment. Eligible multi-domain prognostic models involved two or more of the modifiable dementia predictors identified in a 2020 Lancet Commission report and a 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) report (less education, hearing loss, traumatic brain injury, hypertension, excessive alcohol intake, obesity, smoking, depression, social isolation, physical inactivity, diabetes mellitus, air pollution, poor diet, and cognitive inactivity). Our secondary objectives were to summarise the prognostic models, to appraise their predictive accuracy (discrimination and calibration) as reported in the development and validation studies, and to identify the implications of using dementia prognostic models for the management of people at a higher risk for future dementia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ISI Web of Science Core Collection from inception until 6 June 2022. We performed forwards and backwards citation tracking of included studies using the Web of Science platform.\nSelection criteria\nWe included development and validation studies of multi-domain prognostic models. The minimum eligible follow-up was five years. Our primary outcome was an incident clinical diagnosis of dementia based on validated diagnostic criteria, and our secondary outcome was dementia or cognitive impairment determined by any other method.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the references, extracted data using a template based on the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS), and assessed risk of bias and applicability of included studies using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). We synthesised the C-statistics of models that had been externally validated in at least three comparable studies.\nMain results\nWe identified 20 eligible studies; eight were development studies and 12 were validation studies. There were 14 unique prognostic models: seven models with validation studies and seven models with development-only studies. The models included a median of nine predictors (range 6 to 34); the median number of modifiable predictors was five (range 2 to 11). The most common modifiable predictors in externally validated models were diabetes, hypertension, smoking, physical activity, and obesity. In development-only models, the most common modifiable predictors were obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and smoking. No models included hearing loss or air pollution as predictors. Nineteen studies had a high risk of bias according to the PROBAST assessment, mainly because of inappropriate analysis methods, particularly lack of reported calibration measures. Applicability concerns were low for 12 studies, as their population, predictors, and outcomes were consistent with those of interest for this review. Applicability concerns were high for nine studies, as they lacked baseline cognitive screening or excluded an age group within the range of 45 to 65 years.\nOnly one model, Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Ageing, and Dementia (CAIDE), had been externally validated in multiple studies, allowing for meta-analysis. The CAIDE model included eight predictors (four modifiable predictors): age, education, sex, systolic blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), total cholesterol, physical activity and APOEƐ4 status. Overall, our confidence in the prediction accuracy of CAIDE was very low; our main reasons for downgrading the certainty of the evidence were high risk of bias across all the studies, high concern of applicability, non-overlapping confidence intervals (CIs), and a high degree of heterogeneity.\nThe summary C-statistic was 0.71 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.76; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence) for the incident clinical diagnosis of dementia, and 0.67 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.73; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence) for dementia or cognitive impairment based on cognitive scores. Meta-analysis of calibration measures was not possible, as few studies provided these data.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified 14 unique multi-domain prognostic models used in middle-aged adults for predicting subsequent dementia. Diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and smoking were the most common modifiable risk factors used as predictors in the models. We performed meta-analyses of C-statistics for one model (CAIDE), but the summary values were unreliable. Owing to lack of data, we were unable to meta-analyse the calibration measures of CAIDE. This review highlights the need for further robust external validations of multi-domain prognostic models for predicting future risk of dementia in middle-aged adults.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What is dementia?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Dementia refers to a group of brain conditions that commonly affect older people and lead to progressive problems with memory, problem-solving, or performing everyday activities. People with certain health conditions or behaviours in middle age – such as high blood pressure, excessive alcohol intake, smoking, depression, low levels of exercise, or poor diet – have a higher chance of developing dementia in later life. We classify these health conditions or behaviours as 'modifiable risk factors' for dementia, because measures such as lifestyle changes can reduce them."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8339
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA thyroid nodule is a discrete lesion within the thyroid gland that might be palpable and is ultrasonographically distinct from the surrounding thyroid parenchyma. Thyroid nodules are more common as age increases and occur more frequently in women. Benign thyroid nodules often cause pressure symptoms and cosmetic complaints. In China and many other countries, doctors use Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) to treat thyroid nodules.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of Chinese herbal medicines in the treatment of benign thyroid nodules in adults.\nSearch methods\nReview authors searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP information (a Chinese database), WANFANG Data (a Chinese database), the Chinese Conference Papers Database and the Chinese Dissertation Database (all searched up to April 2013).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing CHM or CHM plus levothyroxine versus levothyroxine, placebo or no treatment in adults with benign thyroid nodules.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data, assessed studies for risk of bias and evaluated overall study quality according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), with differences resolved by consensus.\nMain results\nWe included one randomised trial involving 152 participants with a randomisation ratio of 2:1 (CHM vs no treatment). The trial applied adequate sequence generation; however, allocation concealment was unclear. Duration of treatment was three months, and follow-up six months. Our a priori defined outcomes of interest (i.e. nodule volume reduction ≥ 50%; pressure symptoms, cosmetic complaints or both; health-related quality of life; all-cause mortality; cancer occurrence; changes in number and size of thyroid nodules; changes in thyroid volume; and socioeconomic effects) were not investigated in the included study. Thyrotropin (TSH), thyroxine (T4) and tri-iodothyronine (T3) serum levels were normal in both groups before and after the trial was conducted. No adverse events were reported (low quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFirm evidence cannot be found to support or refute the use of Chinese herbal medicines for benign thyroid nodules in adults.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "To assess the effects of Chinese herbal medicines in the treatment of benign thyroid nodules in adults."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8340
|
[
{
"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: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to know if people suspected to have inflammation of the membranes covering the brain and spinal cord (meningitis) due to infection with the meningococcal bacteria should be given antibiotics before the diagnosis is confirmed in order to prevent death or disability. We found one relevant study."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8341
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnti–tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents are effective in treating people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but are associated with (dose-dependent) adverse effects and high costs. To prevent overtreatment, several trials have assessed the effectiveness of down-titration compared with continuation of the standard dose. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate the benefits and harms of down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation, or disease activity-guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents on disease activity, functioning, costs, safety, and radiographic damage compared with usual care in people with RA and low disease activity.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL (29 March 2018) and four trial registries (11 April 2018) together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We screened conference proceedings (American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism 2005-2017).\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing down-titration (dose reduction, discontinuation, disease activity–guided dose tapering) of anti-TNF agents (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) to usual care/no down-titration in people with RA and low disease activity.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methodology.\nMain results\nOne previously included trial was excluded retrospectively in this update because it was not an RCT/CCT. We included eight additional trials, for a total of 14 studies (13 RCTs and one CCT, 3315 participants in total) reporting anti-TNF down-titration. Six studies (1148 participants) reported anti-TNF dose reduction compared with anti-TNF continuation. Eight studies (2111 participants) reported anti-TNF discontinuation compared with anti-TNF continuation (three studies assessed both anti-TNF discontinuation and dose reduction), and three studies assessed disease activity–guided anti-TNF dose tapering (365 participants). These studies included data on all anti-TNF agents, but primarily adalimumab and etanercept. Thirteen studies were available in full text, one was available as abstract. We assessed the included studies generally at low to moderate risk of bias; our main concerns were bias due to open-label treatment and unblinded outcome assessment. Clinical heterogeneity between the trials was high. The included studies were performed at clinical centres around the world and included people with early as well as established RA, the majority of whom were female with mean ages between 47 and 60. Study durations ranged from 6 months to 3.5 years.\nWe found that anti-TNF dose reduction leads to little or no difference in mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 26 to 52 weeks (high-certainty evidence, mean difference (MD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.11 to 0.24, absolute risk difference (ARD) 1%) compared with continuation. Also, anti-TNF dose reduction does not result in an important deterioration in function after 26 to 52 weeks (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI)) (high-certainty evidence, MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.19, ARD 3%). Next to this, anti-TNF dose reduction may slightly reduce the proportion of participants switched to another biologic (low-certainty evidence), but probably slightly increases the proportion of participants with minimal radiographic progression after 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence, risk ratio (RR) 1.22, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.95, ARD 2% higher). Anti-TNF dose reduction may cause little or no difference in serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events and proportion of participants with persistent remission (low-certainty evidence).\nResults show that anti-TNF discontinuation probably slightly increases the mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 28 to 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence, MD 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.25, ARD 14%), and that the RR of persistent remission lies between 0.16 and 0.77 (low-certainty evidence). Anti-TNF discontinuation increases the proportion participants with minimal radiographic progression after 52 weeks (high-certainty evidence, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.59, ARD 7%) and may lead to a slight deterioration in function (HAQ-DI) (low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether anti-TNF discontinuation influences the number of serious adverse events (due to very low-certainty evidence) and the number of withdrawals due to adverse events after 28 to 52 weeks probably increases slightly (moderate-certainty evidence, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.84, ARD 1% higher).\nAnti-TNF disease activity–guided dose tapering may result in little or no difference in mean disease activity score (DAS28) after 72 to 78 weeks (low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, anti-TNF disease activity–guided dose tapering results in little or no difference in the proportion of participants with persistent remission after 18 months (high-certainty evidence, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06, ARD −9%) and may result in little or no difference in switching to another biologic (low-certainty evidence). Anti-TNF disease activity–guided dose tapering may slightly increase proportion of participants with minimal radiographic progression (low-certainty evidence) and probably leads to a slight deterioration of function after 18 months (moderate-certainty evidence, MD 0.2 higher, 0.02 lower to 0.42 higher, ARD 7% higher), It is uncertain whether anti-TNF disease activity-guided dose tapering influences the number of serious adverse events due to very low-certainty evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that fixed-dose reduction of anti-TNF, after at least three to 12 months of low disease activity, is comparable to continuation of the standard dose regarding disease activity and function, and may be comparable with regards to the proportion of participants with persistent remission. Discontinuation (also without disease activity–guided adaptation) of anti-TNF is probably inferior to continuation of treatment with respect to disease activity, the proportion of participants with persistent remission, function, and minimal radiographic damage. Disease activity–guided dose tapering of anti-TNF is comparable to continuation of treatment with respect to the proportion of participants with persistent remission and may be comparable regarding disease activity.\nCaveats of this review are that available data are mainly limited to etanercept and adalimumab, the heterogeneity between studies, and the use of superiority instead of non-inferiority designs.\nFuture research should focus on the anti-TNF agents infliximab and golimumab; assessment of disease activity, function, and radiographic outcomes after longer follow-up; and assessment of long-term safety, cost-effectiveness, and predictors for successful down-titration. Also, use of a validated flare criterion, non-inferiority designs, and disease activity–guided tapering instead of fixed-dose reduction or discontinuation would allow researchers to better interpret study findings and generalise to clinical practice.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Disease activity\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "- People who lowered the dose of anti-TNF showed little or no increase in disease activity compared with people who continued anti-TNF (high-certainty evidence).\n- People who stopped anti-TNF had a 0.96 unit increase in disease activity on a scale from 0.9 to 8 compared with people who continued anti-TNF (absolute difference 14%, moderate-certainty evidence).\n- People who gradually lowered the dose of anti-TNF showed little or no increase in disease activity compared with people who continued anti-TNF (low-certainty evidence)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8342
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with febrile neutropaenia are usually treated in a hospital setting. Recently, treatment with oral antibiotics has been proven to be as effective as intravenous therapy. However, the efficacy and safety of outpatient treatment have not been fully evaluated.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy (treatment failure and mortality) and safety (adverse events of antimicrobials) of outpatient treatment compared with inpatient treatment in people with cancer who have low-risk febrile neutropaenia.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid (from 1948 to November week 4, 2018), Embase via Ovid (from 1980 to 2018, week 48) and trial registries (National Cancer Institute, MetaRegister of Controlled Trials, Medical Research Council Clinical Trial Directory). We handsearched all references of included studies and major reviews.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outpatient with inpatient treatment for people with cancer who develop febrile neutropaenia. The outpatient group included those who started treatment as an inpatient and completed the antibiotic course at home (sequential) as well as those who started treatment at home.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, methodological quality, and extracted data. Primary outcome measures were: treatment failure and mortality; secondary outcome measures considered were: duration of fever, adverse drug reactions to antimicrobial treatment, duration of neutropaenia, duration of hospitalisation, duration of antimicrobial treatment, and quality of life (QoL). We estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data; we calculated weighted mean differences for continuous data. Random-effects meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted.\nMain results\nWe included ten RCTs, six in adults (628 participants) and four in children (366 participants). We found no clear evidence of a difference in treatment failure between the outpatient and inpatient groups, either in adults (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.85, I2 0%; six studies; moderate-certainty evidence) or children (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.99, I2 0%; four studies; moderate-certainty evidence). For mortality, we also found no clear evidence of a difference either in studies in adults (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.71; six studies; 628 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or in children (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.70; three studies; 329 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nAccording to the type of intervention (early discharge or exclusively outpatient), meta-analysis of treatment failure in four RCTs in adults with early discharge (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.95; P = 0.26, I2 0%; 364 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) was similar to the results of the exclusively outpatient meta-analysis (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.13; P = 0.65, I2 19%; two studies; 264 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).\nRegarding the secondary outcome measures, we found no clear evidence of a difference between outpatient and inpatient groups in duration of fever (adults: mean difference (MD) 0.2, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.76, 1 study, 169 participants; low-certainty evidence) (children: MD -0.6, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.71, 3 studies, 305 participants; low-certainty evidence) and in duration of neutropaenia (adults: MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.79, 1 study, 169 participants; low-certainty evidence) (children: MD -0.65, 95% CI -1.86 to 0.55, 2 studies, 268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). With regard to adverse drug reactions, although there was greater frequency in the outpatient group, we found no clear evidence of a difference when compared to the inpatient group, either in adult participants (RR 8.39, 95% CI 0.38 to 187.15; three studies; 375 participants; low-certainty evidence) or children (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.61 to 5.98; two studies; 156 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nFour studies compared the hospitalisation time and found that the mean number of days of hospital stay was lower in the outpatient treated group by 1.64 days in adults (MD -1.64, 95% CI -2.22 to -1.06; 3 studies, 251 participants; low-certainty evidence) and by 3.9 days in children (MD -3.90, 95% CI -5.37 to -2.43; 1 study, 119 participants; low-certainty evidence). In the 3 RCTs of children in which days of antimicrobial treatment were analysed, we found no difference between outpatient and inpatient groups (MD -0.07, 95% CI -1.26 to 1.12; 305 participants; low-certainty evidence).\nWe identified two studies that measured QoL: one in adults and one in children. QoL was slightly better in the outpatient group than in the inpatient group in both studies, but there was no consistency in the domains included.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOutpatient treatment for low-risk febrile neutropaenia in people with cancer probably makes little or no difference to treatment failure and mortality compared with the standard hospital (inpatient) treatment and may reduce time that patients need to be treated in hospital.\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": "Neutrophils (a type of white blood cell) are key to fighting bacterial infections. People treated for cancer often have low neutrophil levels, which is called neutropaenia, most commonly because of chemotherapy treatment. This leaves them susceptible to infection, which can become serious and potentially life-threatening very quickly. This is called neutropaenic sepsis. For many years, people with cancer who develop a fever whilst they are neutropaenic (called neutropaenic fever) have been given antibiotics to prevent them from developing overwhelming neutropaenic sepsis. Depending of the duration of neutropaenia, as well as type of cancer, age and other symptoms, patients can fall in to two risk groups: high- or low risk of developing a serious infection. Recently, treatment with oral antibiotics (medicine given as liquid or tablets by mouth) has been proven to be as effective as intravenous (medicine injected into a vein) treatments. However, it is unclear whether providing treatment in an outpatient setting is as safe as therapy administered in a hospital setting."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8343
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nMyopia is a common refractive error, where elongation of the eyeball causes distant objects to appear blurred. The increasing prevalence of myopia is a growing global public health problem, in terms of rates of uncorrected refractive error and significantly, an increased risk of visual impairment due to myopia-related ocular morbidity. Since myopia is usually detected in children before 10 years of age and can progress rapidly, interventions to slow its progression need to be delivered in childhood.\nObjectives\nTo assess the comparative efficacy of optical, pharmacological and environmental interventions for slowing myopia progression in children using network meta-analysis (NMA). To generate a relative ranking of myopia control interventions according to their efficacy. To produce a brief economic commentary, summarising the economic evaluations assessing myopia control interventions in children. To maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register), MEDLINE; Embase; and three trials registers. The search date was 26 February 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of optical, pharmacological and environmental interventions for slowing myopia progression in children aged 18 years or younger. Critical outcomes were progression of myopia (defined as the difference in the change in spherical equivalent refraction (SER, dioptres (D)) and axial length (mm) in the intervention and control groups at one year or longer) and difference in the change in SER and axial length following cessation of treatment ('rebound').\nData collection and analysis\nWe followed standard Cochrane methods. We assessed bias using RoB 2 for parallel RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes: change in SER and axial length at one and two years. Most comparisons were with inactive controls.\nMain results\nWe included 64 studies that randomised 11,617 children, aged 4 to 18 years. Studies were mostly conducted in China or other Asian countries (39 studies, 60.9%) and North America (13 studies, 20.3%). Fifty-seven studies (89%) compared myopia control interventions (multifocal spectacles, peripheral plus spectacles (PPSL), undercorrected single vision spectacles (SVLs), multifocal soft contact lenses (MFSCL), orthokeratology, rigid gas-permeable contact lenses (RGP); or pharmacological interventions (including high- (HDA), moderate- (MDA) and low-dose (LDA) atropine, pirenzipine or 7-methylxanthine) against an inactive control. Study duration was 12 to 36 months. The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate.\nSince the networks in the NMA were poorly connected, most estimates versus control were as, or more, imprecise than the corresponding direct estimates. Consequently, we mostly report estimates based on direct (pairwise) comparisons below.\nAt one year, in 38 studies (6525 participants analysed), the median change in SER for controls was −0.65 D. The following interventions may reduce SER progression compared to controls: HDA (mean difference (MD) 0.90 D, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.18), MDA (MD 0.65 D, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.03), LDA (MD 0.38 D, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.66), pirenzipine (MD 0.32 D, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.49), MFSCL (MD 0.26 D, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.35), PPSLs (MD 0.51 D, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.82), and multifocal spectacles (MD 0.14 D, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.21). By contrast, there was little or no evidence that RGP (MD 0.02 D, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.10), 7-methylxanthine (MD 0.07 D, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.24) or undercorrected SVLs (MD −0.15 D, 95% CI −0.29 to 0.00) reduce progression.\nAt two years, in 26 studies (4949 participants), the median change in SER for controls was −1.02 D. The following interventions may reduce SER progression compared to controls: HDA (MD 1.26 D, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.36), MDA (MD 0.45 D, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.83), LDA (MD 0.24 D, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.31), pirenzipine (MD 0.41 D, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69), MFSCL (MD 0.30 D, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.41), and multifocal spectacles (MD 0.19 D, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.30). PPSLs (MD 0.34 D, 95% CI −0.08 to 0.76) may also reduce progression, but the results were inconsistent. For RGP, one study found a benefit and another found no difference with control. We found no difference in SER change for undercorrected SVLs (MD 0.02 D, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.09).\nAt one year, in 36 studies (6263 participants), the median change in axial length for controls was 0.31 mm. The following interventions may reduce axial elongation compared to controls: HDA (MD −0.33 mm, 95% CI −0.35 to 0.30), MDA (MD −0.28 mm, 95% CI −0.38 to −0.17), LDA (MD −0.13 mm, 95% CI −0.21 to −0.05), orthokeratology (MD −0.19 mm, 95% CI −0.23 to −0.15), MFSCL (MD −0.11 mm, 95% CI −0.13 to −0.09), pirenzipine (MD −0.10 mm, 95% CI −0.18 to −0.02), PPSLs (MD −0.13 mm, 95% CI −0.24 to −0.03), and multifocal spectacles (MD −0.06 mm, 95% CI −0.09 to −0.04). We found little or no evidence that RGP (MD 0.02 mm, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.10), 7-methylxanthine (MD 0.03 mm, 95% CI −0.10 to 0.03) or undercorrected SVLs (MD 0.05 mm, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.11) reduce axial length.\nAt two years, in 21 studies (4169 participants), the median change in axial length for controls was 0.56 mm. The following interventions may reduce axial elongation compared to controls: HDA (MD −0.47mm, 95% CI −0.61 to −0.34), MDA (MD −0.33 mm, 95% CI −0.46 to −0.20), orthokeratology (MD −0.28 mm, (95% CI −0.38 to −0.19), LDA (MD −0.16 mm, 95% CI −0.20 to −0.12), MFSCL (MD −0.15 mm, 95% CI −0.19 to −0.12), and multifocal spectacles (MD −0.07 mm, 95% CI −0.12 to −0.03). PPSL may reduce progression (MD −0.20 mm, 95% CI −0.45 to 0.05) but results were inconsistent. We found little or no evidence that undercorrected SVLs (MD -0.01 mm, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.03) or RGP (MD 0.03 mm, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.12) reduce axial length.\nThere was inconclusive evidence on whether treatment cessation increases myopia progression. Adverse events and treatment adherence were not consistently reported, and only one study reported quality of life.\nNo studies reported environmental interventions reporting progression in children with myopia, and no economic evaluations assessed interventions for myopia control in children.\nAuthors' conclusions\nStudies mostly compared pharmacological and optical treatments to slow the progression of myopia with an inactive comparator. Effects at one year provided evidence that these interventions may slow refractive change and reduce axial elongation, although results were often heterogeneous. A smaller body of evidence is available at two or three years, and uncertainty remains about the sustained effect of these interventions. Longer-term and better-quality studies comparing myopia control interventions used alone or in combination are needed, and improved methods for monitoring and reporting adverse effects.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is the evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "This review is up-to-date to February 2022."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8344
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nVitamin D deficiency during pregnancy increases the risk of pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, preterm birth, and low birthweight. In a previous Cochrane Review we found that supplementing pregnant women with vitamin D alone compared to no vitamin D supplementation may reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and low birthweight and may increase the risk of preterm births if it is combined with calcium. However the effects of different vitamin D regimens are not yet clear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects and safety of different regimens of vitamin D supplementation alone or in combination with calcium or other vitamins, minerals or nutrients during pregnancy, specifically doses of 601 international units per day (IU/d) or more versus 600 IU/d or less; and 4000 IU/d or more versus 3999 IU/d or less.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 July 2018), and the reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials evaluating the effect of different vitamin D regimens (dose, frequency, duration, and time of commencement of supplementation during pregnancy), alone or in combination with other nutrients on pregnancy and neonatal health outcomes. We only included trials that compared 601 IU/d or more versus 600 IU/d or less and 4000 IU/d or more versus 3999 IU/d or less. We did not include in the analysis groups that received no vitamin D, as that comparison is assessed in another Cochrane Review.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently: i) assessed the eligibility of studies against the inclusion criteria; ii) extracted data from included studies, and iii) assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Our primary maternal outcomes were: pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and any adverse effects; our primary infant outcomes were preterm birth and low birthweight. Data were checked for accuracy. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nIn this review, we included data from 30 trials involving 7289 women. We excluded 11 trials, identified 16 ongoing/unpublished trials and two trials are awaiting classification. Overall risk of bias for the trials was mixed.\nComparison 1. 601 IU/d or more versus 600 IU/d or less of vitamin D alone or with any other nutrient (19 trials; 5214 participants)\nSupplementation with 601 IU/d or more of vitamin D during pregnancy may make little or no difference to the risk of pre-eclampsia (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.42); 5 trials; 1553 participants,low-certainty evidence), may reduce the risk of gestational diabetes (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.86; 5 trials; 1846 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), may make little or no difference to the risk of preterm birth (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.69; 4 trials; 2294 participants; low-certainty evidence); and may make little or no difference to the risk of low birthweight (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.24; 4 trials; 1550 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared to women receiving 600 IU/d or less.\nComparison 2. 4000 IU or more versus 3999 IU or less of vitamin D alone (15 trials; 4763 participants)\nSupplementation with 4000 IU/d or more of vitamin D during pregnancy may make little or no difference to the risk of: pre-eclampsia (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.22; 4 trials, 1903 participants, low-certainty evidence); gestational diabetes (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.42; 5 trials, 2276 participants; low-certainty evidence); preterm birth (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.12; 6 trials, 2948 participants, low-certainty evidence); and low birthweight (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.70; 2 trials; 1099 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to women receiving 3999 IU/d or less.\nAdverse events (such as hypercalcaemia, hypocalcaemia, hypercalciuria, and hypovitaminosis D) were reported differently in most trials; however, in general, there was little to no side effects reported or similar cases between groups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSupplementing pregnant women with more than the current vitamin D recommendation may reduce the risk of gestational diabetes; however, it may make little or no difference to the risk of pre-eclampsia, preterm birth and low birthweight. Supplementing pregnant women with more than the current upper limit for vitamin D seems not to increase the risk of the outcomes evaluated. In general, the GRADE was considered low certainty for most of the primary outcomes due to serious risk of bias and imprecision of results. With respect to safety, it appears that vitamin D supplementation is a safe intervention during pregnancy, although the parameters used to determine this were either not reported or not consistent between trials. Future trials should be consistent in their reports of adverse events. There are 16 ongoing trials that when published, will increase the body of knowledge.\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": "This review evaluated if there are beneficial effects of supplementing pregnant women with more than the current vitamin D recommendation (200 international units/day (IU/d) to 600 IU/d) on pregnancy and neonatal health outcomes and to evaluate if there are negative health effects when using more than the current upper limit recommendation (4000 IU/d)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8345
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThis is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005. Blepharospasm is the second most common form of focal dystonia. It is a disabling disorder, characterised by chronic, intermittent or persistent, involuntary eyelid closure, due to spasmodic contractions of the orbicularis oculi muscles. Currently, botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is considered the first line of therapy for this condition.\nObjectives\nTo compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BtA versus placebo in people with blepharospasm.\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Movement Disorders' Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, reference lists of included articles, and conference proceedings. We ran all elements of the search, with no language restrictions, in July 2020.\nSelection criteria\nDouble-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtA versus placebo in adults with blepharospasm.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma, and evaluated the risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by consensus, or by consulting a third review author. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model, for the comparison of BtA versus placebo, to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We did not carry out any prespecified subgroup analyses. The primary efficacy outcome was improvement on any validated symptomatic rating scale. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event.\nMain results\nWe included three RCTs, assessed at low to moderate overall risk of bias, which randomised 313 participants with blepharospasm. Two studies excluded participants with poorer prior responses to BtA treatment, therefore, they included an enriched population with a higher probability of benefiting from this therapy. All trials were industry-funded. All RCTs evaluated the effect of a single BtA treatment session.\nBtA resulted in a moderate to large improvement in blepharospasm-specific severity, with a reduction of 0.93 points on the Jankovic Rating Scale (JRS) severity subscale at four to six weeks after injection (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.25; I² = 9%) compared to placebo. BtA was also resulted in a moderate to large improvement in blepharospasm-specific disability and blepharospasm-specific involuntary movements at four to six weeks after injection (disability: 0.69 JRS disability subscale points, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.19; I² = 74%; blepharospasm-specific involuntary movements: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.79, 0.31 to 1.27; I² = 58%) compared to placebo. BtA did not show a risk of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.60; I² = 0%). However, BtA increased the risk of vision complaints and eyelid ptosis (vision complaints: RR 5.73, 95% CI 1.79 to 18.36; I² = 51%; eyelid ptosis: RR 4.02, 95% CI 1.61 to 10.00; I² = 39%). There was no distinction between BtA and placebo in the number of participants who dropped out of the trial.\nA single trial estimated the duration of effects to be 10.6 weeks (range 6.1 to 19.1).\nWe found no evidence supporting the existence of a clear dose-response relationship with BtA. We found no data reporting the impact of BtA on health-related quality of life, or the development of secondary non-responsiveness.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe are moderately certain that a single BtA treatment resulted in a clinically relevant reduction of blepharospasm-specific severity and disability, and have low certainty that it is well tolerated, when compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that people treated with BtA are not at an increased risk of developing adverse events, though BtA treatment likely increases the risk of visual complaints and eyelid ptosis. There are no data from RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of repeated BtA injection cycles.\nThere is no evidence from RCTs to allow us to draw definitive conclusions on the optimal treatment intervals and doses, or the impact on quality of life.\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 the medical literature in July 2020 and found three studies that compared treatment with BtA with placebo (injection with a liquid that will not treat the problem). These studies included a total of 313 participants, who had, on average, a moderate impairment. Most (66%) of the people in the studies were women. All trials were funded by drug manufacturers with possible interests in the results of the studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8346
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAnophthalmia is the absence of one or both eyes, and it can be congenital (i.e. a birth defect) or acquired later in life. There are two main types of orbital implant: integrated, whereby the implant receives a blood supply from the body that allows for the integration of the prosthesis within the tissue; and non-integrated, where the implant remains separate. Despite the remarkable progress in anophthalmic socket reconstruction and in the development of various types of implants, there are still uncertainties about the real roles of integrated (hydroxyapatite (HA), porous polyethylene (PP), composites) and non-integrated (polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)/acrylic and silicone) orbital implants in anophthalmic socket treatment.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of integrated versus non-integrated orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2016), Embase (January 1980 to August 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to August 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 8 August 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of integrated and non-integrated orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data.\nMain results\nWe included three studies with a total of 284 participants (250 included in analysis). The studies were conducted in India, Iran and the Netherlands. The three studies were clinically heterogenous, comparing different materials and using different surgical techniques. None of the included studies used a peg (i.e. a fixing pin used to connect the implant to the prosthesis). In general the trials were poorly reported, and we judged them to be at unclear risk of bias.\nOne trial compared HA using traditional enucleation versus alloplastic implantation using evisceration (N = 100). This trial was probably not masked. The second trial compared PP with scleral cap enucleation versus PMMA with either myoconjunctival or traditional enucleation (N = 150). Although participants were not masked, outcome assessors were. The last trial compared HA and acrylic using the enucleation technique (N = 34) but did not report comparative effectiveness data.\nIn the trial comparing HA versus alloplastic implantation, there was no evidence of any difference between the two groups with respect to the proportion of successful procedures at one year (risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.09, N = 100, low-certainty evidence). People receiving HA had slightly worse horizontal implant mobility compared to the alloplastic group (mean difference (MD) −3.35 mm, 95% CI −4.08 to −2.62, very low-certainty evidence) and slightly worse vertical implant motility (MD −2.76 mm, 95% CI −3.45 to −2.07, very low-certainty evidence). As different techniques were used – enucleation versus evisceration – it is not clear whether these differences in implant motility can be attributed solely to the type of material. Investigators did not report adverse events.\nIn the trial comparing PP versus PMMA, there was no evidence of any difference between the two groups with respect to the proportion of successful procedures at one year (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01, N = 150, low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence of a difference in horizontal implant motility depending on whether PP was compared to PMMA with traditional enucleation (MD 1.96 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.91) or PMMA with myoconjunctival enucleation (−0.57 mm, 95% CI −1.63 to 0.49). Similarly, for vertical implant motility, there was very low-certainty evidence of a difference in the comparison of PP to PMMA traditional (MD 3.12 mm 95% CI 2.36 to 3.88) but no evidence of a difference when comparing PP to PMMA myoconjunctival (MD −0.20 mm 95% CI −1.28 to 0.88). Four people in the PP group (total N = 50) experienced adverse events (i.e. exposures) compared to 6/100 in the PMMA groups (RR 17.82, 95% CI 0.98 to 324.67, N = 150, very low-certainty evidence).\nNone of the studies reported socket sphere size, cosmetic effect or quality of life measures.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCurrent very low-certainty evidence from three small published randomised controlled trials did not provide sufficient evidence to assess the effect of integrated and non-integrated material orbital implants for treating anophthalmic sockets. This review underlines the need to conduct further well-designed trials in this field.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key messages\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "There is uncertainty as to the benefits and harms of integrated compared with non-integrated orbital implants.What was studied in the review?'Anophthalmia' is the absence of the eye in the orbit. This can occur in childhood (because of problems with development) or it can happen during the course of life (due to an accident or other eye disease).\nDoctors can put an implant in the orbit to fill the void left by the removal of the eye and this together with an external prosthesis can improve the patient's appearance. This orbital implant can be made of two types of materials – integrated or non-integrated material. If the material is integrated, then new blood vessels can grow into the implant material. If the material is non-integrated, then the orbital implant remains separate from the rest of the orbit's tissue.\nThe review authors looked to see if the type of implant material affected the success of the surgery or, in other words, if integrated implants can provide better results than non-integrated implants. They were also interested in how much the external prosthesis could move better after surgery – using integrated or non-integrated orbital implants. Also, the authors wanted to know if the type of orbital implant material can affect people's quality of life. Were there any adverse (harmful) effects of using integrated or non-integrated orbital implants?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8347
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRoot caries is a well-recognised disease, with increasing prevalence as populations age and retain more of their natural teeth into later life. Like coronal caries, root caries can be associated with pain, discomfort, tooth loss, and contribute significantly to poorer oral health-related quality of life in the elderly. Supplementing the visual-tactile examination could prove beneficial in improving the accuracy of early detection and diagnosis. The detection of root caries lesions at an early stage in the disease continuum can inform diagnosis and lead to targeted preventive therapies and lesion arrest.\nObjectives\nTo assess the diagnostic test accuracy of index tests for the detection and diagnosis of root caries in adults, used alone or in combination with other tests.\nSearch methods\nCochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist undertook a search of the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 31 December 2018); Embase Ovid (1980 to 31 December 2018); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov, to 31 December 2018); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 31 December 2018). We studied reference lists as well as published systematic review articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included diagnostic accuracy study designs that compared one or more index tests (laser fluorescence, radiographs, visual examination, electronic caries monitor (ECM), transillumination), either independently or in combination, with a reference standard. This included prospective studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of single index tests and studies that directly compared two or more index tests. In vitro and in vivo studies were eligible for inclusion but studies that artificially created carious lesions were excluded.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors extracted data independently and in duplicate using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) specific to the review context. Estimates of diagnostic test accuracy were expressed as sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each dataset. We planned to use hierarchical models for data synthesis and explore potential sources of heterogeneity through meta-regression.\nMain results\nFour cross-sectional diagnostic test accuracy studies providing eight datasets with data from 4997 root surfaces were analysed. Two in vitro studies evaluated secondary root caries lesions on extracted teeth and two in vivo studies evaluated primary root caries lesions within the oral cavity. Four studies evaluated laser fluorescence and reported estimates of sensitivity ranging from 0.50 to 0.81 and specificity ranging from 0.40 to 0.80. Two studies evaluated radiographs and reported estimates of sensitivity ranging from 0.40 to 0.63 and specificity ranging from 0.31 to 0.80. One study evaluated visual examination and reported sensitivity of 0.75 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.93) and specificity of 0.38 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.68). One study evaluated the accuracy of radiograph and visual examination in combination and reported sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) and specificity of 0.54 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.81). Given the small number of studies and important differences in the clinical and methodological characteristics of the studies we were unable to pool the results. Consequently, we were unable to formally evaluate the comparative accuracy of the different tests considered in this review. Using QUADAS-2 we judged all four studies to be at overall high risk of bias, but only two to have applicability concerns (patient selection domain). Reasons included bias in the selection process, use of post hoc (data driven) positivity thresholds, use of an imperfect reference standard, and use of extracted teeth.\nWe downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to study limitations and serious imprecision of the results (downgraded two levels), and judged the certainty of the evidence to be very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nVisual-tactile examination is the mainstay of root caries detection and diagnosis; however, due to the paucity of the evidence base and the very low certainty of the evidence we were unable to determine the additional benefit of adjunctive diagnostic tests for the detection and diagnosis of root caries.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Who do the results of this review apply to?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Studies included in the review were carried out in Hong Kong and Switzerland and aimed at the general dental practitioner conducting a clinical examination on adults attending a dental setting."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8348
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTraumatic corneal abrasions are relatively common and there is a lack of consensus about analgesia in their management. It is therefore important to document the clinical efficacy and safety profile of topical ophthalmic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the management of traumatic corneal abrasions.\nObjectives\nTo identify and evaluate all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of topical NSAIDs with placebo or any alternative analgesic interventions in adults with traumatic corneal abrasions (including corneal abrasions arising from foreign body removal), to reduce pain, and its effects on healing time.\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 30 March 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 30 March 2017), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 30 March 2017), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/); searched 30 March 2017, ZETOC (1993 to 30 March 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 30 March 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 30 March 2017 and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 30 March 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.We checked the reference lists of identified trials to search for further potentially relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nRCTs comparing topical NSAIDs to placebo or any alternative analgesic interventions in adults with traumatic corneal abrasions.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed data extraction and assessed risks of bias in the included studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included nine studies that met the inclusion criteria, reporting data on 637 participants.The studies took place in the UK, USA, Israel, Italy, France and Portugal. These studies compared five types of topical NSAIDs (0.1% indomethacin, 0.03% flurbiprofen, 0.5% ketorolac, 1% indomethacin, 0.1% diclofenac) to control (consisting of standard care and in four studies used placebo eye drops). Overall, the studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias (particularly selection and reporting bias). None of the included studies reported the primary outcome measures of this review, namely participant-reported pain intensity reduction of 30% or more or 50% or more at 24 hours. Four trials, that included data on 481 participants receiving NSAIDs or control (placebo/standard care), reported on the use of ‘rescue’ analgesia at 24 hours as a proxy measure of pain control. Topical NSAIDs were associated with a reduction in the need for oral analgesia compared with control (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.61; low-certainty evidence). Approximately 4 out of 10 people in the control group used rescue analgesia at 24 hours. No data were available on the use of analgesia at 48 or 72 hours.\nOne trial (28 participants) reported on the proportion of abrasions healed after 24 and 48 hours. These outcomes were similar in both arms of the trial. (at 24 hours RR 1.00 (0.81 to 1.23); at 48 hours RR 1.00 (0.88 to 1.14); low-certainty evidence). In the control group nine out of 10 abrasions were healed within 24 hours and all were healed by 48 hours. Complications of corneal abrasions were reported in 6 studies (609 participants) and were infrequently reported (4 complications, 1 in NSAID groups (recurrent corneal erosion) and 3 in control groups (2 recurrent corneal erosions and 1 corneal abscess), very low-certainty evidence). Possible drug-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in two trials (163 participants), with the number of adverse events low (4 AEs, 3 in NSAID group, including discomfort/photophobia on instillation, conjunctival hyperaemia and urticaria, and 1 in the control group, corneal abscess) very low-certainty evidence.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe findings of the included studies do not provide strong evidence to support the use of topical NSAIDs in traumatic corneal abrasions. This is important, since NSAIDs are associated with a higher cost compared to oral analgesics. None of the trials addressed our primary outcome measure of participant-reported pain intensity reduction of 30% or more or 50% or more at 24 hours.\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": "It is unclear if using topical NSAIDs is helpful in traumatic corneal abrasions. Topical NSAIDs cost more to use than alternative treatments such as oral pain-killing tablets."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8349
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIndications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure remains uncertain.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of NPWT for preventing SSI in wounds healing through primary closure, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPWT in wounds healing through primary closure.\nSearch methods\nIn January 2021, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and references of included studies, systematic reviews and health technology reports. There were no restrictions on language, publication date or study setting.\nSelection criteria\nWe included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and quality assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. Our primary outcomes were SSI, mortality, and wound dehiscence.\nMain results\nIn this fourth update, we added 18 new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one new economic study, resulting in a total of 62 RCTs (13,340 included participants) and six economic studies. Studies evaluated NPWT in a wide range of surgeries, including orthopaedic, obstetric, vascular and general procedures. All studies compared NPWT with standard dressings. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for at least one key domain.\nPrimary outcomes\nEleven studies (6384 participants) which reported mortality were pooled. There is low-certainty evidence showing there may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT (0.84%) compared with standard dressings (1.17%) but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefits and harm; risk ratio (RR) 0.78 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.30; I2 = 0%). Fifty-four studies reported SSI; 44 studies (11,403 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT probably results in fewer SSIs (8.7% of participants) than treatment with standard dressings (11.75%) after surgery; RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.85; I2 = 29%). Thirty studies reported wound dehiscence; 23 studies (8724 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference in dehiscence between people treated with NPWT (6.62%) and those treated with standard dressing (6.97%), although there is imprecision around the estimate that includes risk of benefit and harms; RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.16; I2 = 4%). Evidence was downgraded for imprecision, risk of bias, or a combination of these.\nSecondary outcomes\nThere is low-certainty evidence for the outcomes of reoperation and seroma; in each case, confidence intervals included both benefit and harm. There may be a reduced risk of reoperation favouring the standard dressing arm, but this was imprecise: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.41; I2 = 2%; 18 trials; 6272 participants). There may be a reduced risk of seroma for people treated with NPWT but this is imprecise: the RR was 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.05; I2 = 0%; 15 trials; 5436 participants). For skin blisters, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with NPWT may be more likely to develop skin blisters compared with those treated with standard dressing (RR 3.55; 95% CI 1.43 to 8.77; I2 = 74%; 11 trials; 5015 participants). The effect of NPWT on haematoma is uncertain (RR 0.79; 95 % CI 0.48 to 1.30; I2 = 0%; 17 trials; 5909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There is low-certainty evidence of little to no difference in reported pain between groups. Pain was measured in different ways and most studies could not be pooled; this GRADE assessment is based on all fourteen trials reporting pain; the pooled RR for the proportion of participants who experienced pain was 1.52 (95% CI 0.20, 11.31; I2 = 34%; two studies; 632 participants).\nCost-effectiveness\nSix economic studies, based wholly or partially on trials in our review, assessed the cost-effectiveness of NPWT compared with standard care. They considered NPWT in five indications: caesarean sections in obese women; surgery for lower limb fracture; knee/hip arthroplasty; coronary artery bypass grafts; and vascular surgery with inguinal incisions. They calculated quality-adjusted life-years or an equivalent, and produced estimates of the treatments' relative cost-effectiveness. The reporting quality was good but the evidence certainty varied from moderate to very low. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT in surgery for lower limb fracture was not cost-effective at any threshold of willingness-to-pay and that NPWT is probably cost-effective in obese women undergoing caesarean section. Other studies found low or very low-certainty evidence indicating that NPWT may be cost-effective for the indications assessed.\nAuthors' conclusions\nPeople with primary closure of their surgical wound and treated prophylactically with NPWT following surgery probably experience fewer SSIs than people treated with standard dressings but there is probably no difference in wound dehiscence (moderate-certainty evidence). There may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT compared with standard dressings but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefit and harm (low-certainty evidence). People treated with NPWT may experience more instances of skin blistering compared with standard dressing treatment (low-certainty evidence). There are no clear differences in other secondary outcomes where most evidence is low or very low-certainty. Assessments of cost-effectiveness of NPWT produced differing results in different indications. There is a large number of ongoing studies, the results of which may change the findings of this review. Decisions about use of NPWT should take into account surgical indication and setting and consider evidence for all outcomes.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We searched for randomised controlled trials (clinical studies where the treatment people receive is chosen at random). This type of study design provides the most reliable evidence about the effects of a treatment. We searched for studies that compared any type of NPWT with standard dressings in people who had had surgery and had a wound which had been closed. We compared and summarised their results, and rated our confidence in the evidence."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8350
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNon-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases, such as asbestosis and silicosis, are similar to other chronic respiratory diseases and may be characterised by breathlessness, reduced exercise capacity and reduced health-related quality of life. Some non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases are a global health issue and very few treatment options, including pharmacological, are available. Therefore, examining the role of exercise training is particularly important to determine whether exercise training is an effective treatment option in non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of exercise training for people with non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases compared with control, placebo or another non-exercise intervention on exercise capacity, health-related quality of life and levels of physical activity.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro and AMED (all searched from inception until February 2015), national and international clinical trial registries, reference lists of relevant papers and we contacted experts in the field for identification of suitable studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared exercise training of at least four weeks duration with no exercise training, placebo or another non-exercise intervention.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of evidence for each outcome and to interpret findings. We synthesized study results using a random-effects model based on the assessment of heterogeneity. We conducted subgroup analyses on participants with dust-related interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) and participants with asbestos related pleural disease (ARPD).\nMain results\nTwo RCTs including a combined total of 40 participants (35 from one study and five from a second study) met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one participants were randomised to the exercise training group and 19 participants were randomised to the control group. The included studies evaluated the effects of exercise training compared to a control group of no exercise training in people with dust-related ILDs and ARPD. The exercise training programme in both studies was in an outpatient setting for an eight-week period. The risk of bias was low in both studies. There were no reported adverse events of exercise training. Following exercise training, six-minute walk distance (6MWD) increased with a mean difference (MD) of 53.81 metres (m) (95% CI 34.36 to 73.26 m). Improvements were also seen in the domains of health-related quality of life: Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) Dyspnoea domain (MD 2.58, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.44); CRQ Fatigue domain (MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.89); CRQ Emotional Function domain (MD 2.61, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.49); and CRQ Mastery domain (MD 1.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.72). Improvements in exercise capacity and health-related quality of life were also evident six months following the intervention period: 6MWD (MD 52.68 m, 95% CI 27.43 to 77.93 m); CRQ Dyspnoea domain (MD 3.03, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.66); CRQ Emotional Function domain (MD 5.57, 95% CI 2.34 to 8.81); and CRQ Mastery domain (MD 2.66, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.23). Exercise training did not result in improvements in the Modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) dyspnoea scale immediately following exercise training or six months following exercise training. The improvements following exercise training were similar in a subgroup of participants with dust-related ILDs and in a subgroup of participants with ARPD compared to the control group, with no statistically significant differences in treatment effects between the subgroups.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe evidence examining exercise training in people with non-malignant dust-related respiratory diseases is of very low quality. This is due to imprecision in the results from the small number of trials and the small number of participants, the indirectness of evidence due to a paucity of information on disease severity and the data from one study being from a subgroup of participants, and inconsistency from high heterogeneity in some results. Therefore, although the review findings indicate that an exercise training programme is effective in improving exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in the short-term and at six months follow-up, we remain unsure of these findings due to the very low quality evidence. Larger, high quality trials are needed to determine the strength of these findings.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Studies we found\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We included two studies with a total of 40 people (35 from one study and five from a second study). Of these people, 21 participated in exercise training and 19 did not participate in exercise training. All people were men and they were between 55 and 86 years old. Both exercise training programmes included cycling and walking and one programme also included strength training exercises. In both studies, training lasted for eight weeks with people attending two to three sessions per week."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8351
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nContinuous fetal heart rate monitoring by cardiotocography (CTG) is used in labour for women with complicated pregnancies. Fetal heart rate abnormalities are common and may result in the decision to expedite delivery by caesarean section. Fetal scalp stimulation (FSS) is a second-line test of fetal well-being that may provide reassurance that the labour can continue.\nObjectives\nTo evaluate methods of FSS as second-line tests of intrapartum fetal well-being in cases of non-reassuring CTG. FSS and CTG were compared to CTG alone, and to CTG with fetal blood sampling (FBS).\nSearch methods\nWe searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the WHO ICTRP and conference proceedings), ClinicalTrials.gov (18 October 2022), and reference lists of retrieved studies.\nSelection criteria\nEligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any form of FSS to assess fetal well-being in labour. Quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and studies published in abstract form were also eligible for inclusion, but none were identified.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nTwo trials, involving 377 women, met the inclusion criteria for this review. Both trials were conducted in hospital settings and included women with singleton, term (37+0 weeks or more) pregnancies, a cephalic presentation, and abnormal CTG. Follow-up was until hospital discharge after the birth. A pilot trial of 50 women in a high-income country (Ireland) compared CTG and digital fetal scalp stimulation (dFSS) with CTG and fetal blood sampling (FBS). A single-centre trial of 327 women in a lower middle-income country (India) compared CTG and manual fetal stimulation (abdominal or vaginal scalp stimulation) with CTG alone. The two included studies were at moderate or unclear risk of bias. Both trials provided clear information on allocation concealment but it was not possible to blind participants or health professionals in relation to the intervention. Although objective outcome measures were reported, outcome assessment was not blinded or blinding was unclear.\ndFSS and CTG versus FBS and CTG\nThere were no perinatal deaths and data were not reported for neurodevelopmental disability at >/= 12 months. The risk of caesarean section (CS) may be lower with dFSS compared to FBS (risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.92; 1 pilot trial, 50 women; very low-certainty evidence) but the evidence is very uncertain. There were no cases of neonatal encephalopathy reported. The evidence was also very uncertain between dFSS and FBS for assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.75; very low-certainty evidence) and for the spontaneous vaginal birth rate (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.68 to 8.01, very low-certainty evidence). Maternal acceptability of the procedures was not reported.\nFSS and CTG versus CTG alone\nManual stimulation of the fetus was performed either abdominally (92/164) or vaginally (72/164). There were no perinatal deaths and data were not reported for neurodevelopmental disability at >/= 12 months. There may be little differences in the risk of CS on comparing manual fetal stimulation and CTG with CTG alone (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.18; 1 trial, 327 women; very low-certainty evidence), but again the evidence was very uncertain. There were no cases of neonatal encephalopathy reported. There may be no differences in the risk of assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.60; very low-certainty evidence) or in the rates of spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21, very low-certainty evidence), but again the evidence is very uncertain. Maternal acceptability of abdominal stimulation/FSS was not reported although 13 women withdrew consent after randomisation due to concerns about fetal well-being.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is very low-certainty evidence available which makes it unclear whether stimulating the fetal scalp is a safe and effective way to confirm fetal well-being in labour. Evidence was downgraded based on limitations in study design and imprecision. Further high-quality studies of adequate sample size are required to evaluate this research question. In order to be generalisable, these trials should be conducted in different settings, including broad clinical criteria at both preterm and term gestational ages, and standardising the method of stimulation. There is an ongoing study (FIRSST) that will be incorporated into this review in a subsequent update.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "If stimulation of the baby's scalp as a second-line test of well-being is demonstrated to be safe and effective, then it may be possible to reduce the chance of an unnecessary caesarean section for women in labour."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8352
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPrimary dysmenorrhoea is the most common form of period pain and affects up to three-quarters of women at some stage of their reproductive life. Primary dysmenorrhoea is pain in the absence of any organic cause and is characterised by cramping pain in the lower abdomen, starting within the first eight to 72 hours of menstruation.This review examines the currently available evidence supporting the use of acupuncture (stimulation of points on the body using needles) and acupressure (stimulation of points on the body using pressure) to treat primary dysmenorrhoea.\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture and acupressure in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea when compared with a placebo, no treatment, or conventional medical treatment.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (to September 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Chinese databases including Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP database and registers of ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture with sham acupuncture or placebo control, usual care, pharmacological treatment or no treatment. We included the following modes of treatment: acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, and acupressure. Participants were women of reproductive age with primary dysmenorrhoea during the majority of the menstrual cycles or for three consecutive menstrual cycles, and moderate to severe symptoms.\nData collection and analysis\nWe calculated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pooled the data where appropriate. Our primary outcomes was pain. Secondary outcomes included menstrual symptoms, quality of life, and adverse effects.\nMain results\nWe included 42 RCTs (4640 women). Acupuncture or acupressure was compared with a sham/placebo group, medication, no treatment or other treatment. Many of the continuous data were not suitable for calculation of means, mainly due to evidence of skew.\n1. Acupuncture studies\nAcupuncture versus sham or placebo control (6 RCTs)\nFindings were inconsistent and inconclusive. However, the only study in the review that was at low risk of bias in all domains found no evidence of a difference between the groups at three, six or 12 months. The overall quality of the evidence was low. No studies reported adverse events.\nAcupuncture versus NSAIDs\nSeven studies reported visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, but were unsuitable for pooling due to extreme heterogeneity (I² = 94%). In all studies the scores were lower in the acupuncture group, with the mean difference varying across studies from 0.64 to 4 points on a VAS 0 - 10 scale (low-quality evidence). Four RCTs reported rates of pain relief, and found a benefit for the acupuncture group (OR 4.99, 95% CI 2.82 to 8.82, 352 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). Adverse events were less common in the acupuncture group (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.44, 4 RCTs, 239 women, 4 trials, I² = 15%, low-quality evidence).\nAcupuncture versus no treatment\nData were unsuitable for analysis, but pain scores were lower in the acupuncture group in all six studies reporting this outcome. The quality of the evidence was low. No studies reported adverse events.\n2. Acupressure studies\nNo studies of acupressure reported adverse events.\nAcupressure versus sham or placebo control\nData were unsuitable for pooling, but two studies reported a mean benefit of one to three points on a 0 - 10 VAS pain scale. Another four studies reported data unsuitable for analysis: all found that pain scores were lower in the acupuncture group. No studies reported adverse events. The quality of the evidence was low.\nAcupressure versus NSAIDs\nOne study reported this outcome, using a 0 - 3 pain scale. The score was higher (indicating more pain) in the acupressure group (MD 0.39 points, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.57, 136 women, very low-quality evidence).\nAcupressure versus no treatment\nThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups on a VAS 0 - 10 pain scale (MD -0.96 points, 95% CI -2.54 to 0.62, 2 trials, 140 women, I² = 83%, very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether or not acupuncture or acupressure are effective in treating primary dysmenorrhoea, and for most comparisons no data were available on adverse events. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all comparisons. The main limitations were risk of bias, poor reporting, inconsistency and risk of publication bias.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Cochrane researchers reviewed the evidence about the effect of acupuncture and acupressure versus a control to reduce menstrual pain and symptoms in all women of reproductive age with primary dysmenorrhoea. Primary dysmenorrhoea is defined as pain without any underlying cause."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8353
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nUreteroscopy combined with laser stone fragmentation and basketing is a common approach for managing renal and ureteral stones. This procedure is associated with some degree of ureteral trauma. Ureteral trauma may lead to swelling, ureteral obstruction, and flank pain and may require subsequent interventions such as hospital admission or secondary ureteral stent placement. To prevent such issues, urologists often place temporary ureteral stents prophylactically, but the value of doing so remains unclear.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of postoperative ureteral stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy.\nSearch methods\nWe performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 01 February 2019. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.\nSelection criteria\nWe included trials in which researchers randomised participants undergoing uncomplicated ureteroscopy to placement of a ureteral stent versus no ureteral stent.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nPrimary outcomes\nStenting may slightly reduce the number of unplanned return visits (16 trials with 1970 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.\nPain on the day of surgery as measured on a visual analogue scale (scale 0 to 10; higher values reflect more pain) is probably similar (mean difference (MD) 0.32 higher, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 lower to 0.78 higher; 4 trials with 346 participants; moderate CoE). Pain on postoperative days 1 to 3 may show little to no difference (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.25 higher, 95% CI 0.32 lower to 0.82 higher; 8 trials with 683 participants; low CoE). On postoperative days 4 to 30, stented participants may experience more pain (8 trials with 903 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.\nStenting may result in little to no difference in the need for secondary interventions (risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.33; 10 studies with 1435 participants; low CoE); this corresponds to three more interventions per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 fewer to 48 more).\nSecondary outcomes\nStenting may reduce the need for narcotics (7 trials with 830 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.\nRates of urinary tract infection (UTI) up to 90 days are probably not substantially different (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.51; 10 trials with 1207 participants; moderate CoE); this corresponds to three fewer infections per 1000 participants (95% CI 23 fewer to 29 more).\nUreteral stricture rates up to 90 days may be slightly reduced (14 trials with 1625 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.\nRates of hospital admission may be slightly reduced (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.55; 13 studies with 1647 participants; low CoE). This corresponds to 15 fewer admissions per 1000 participants (95% CI 33 fewer to 27 more).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFindings of this review illustrate the trade-offs of risks and benefits faced by urologists and their patients when it comes to decision-making about stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone disease. We noted that both desirable and undesirable effects were small in absolute terms, with findings based mostly on low and very low CoE. The main issues reducing our confidence in research findings were study limitations (mostly risk of performance and detection bias) and imprecision. We were unable to conduct any of the preplanned subgroup analyses, in particular those based on stone size, stone location, and use of ureteral dilation, which may be important effect modifiers. Given the importance of this question, higher-quality and sufficiently large trials are needed to better inform decision-making.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Certainty of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low depending on the outcome, meaning that we have moderate, low, or very low confidence in the study results."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8354
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeople with cystic fibrosis (CF) and pancreatic insufficiency are at risk of a deficiency in fat-soluble vitamins, including vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency predominantly causes eye and skin problems, while excessive levels of vitamin A can harm the respiratory and skeletal systems in children and interfere with the metabolism of other fat-soluble vitamins. Most CF centres administer vitamin A as supplements to reduce the frequency of vitamin A deficiency in people with CF and to improve clinical outcomes such as growth, although the recommended dose varies between different guidelines. Thus, a systematic review on vitamin A and vitamin A-like supplementation (carotenes or other retinoids) in people with CF would help guide clinical practice. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.\nObjectives\nTo determine if supplementation with vitamin A, carotenes or other retinoid supplements in children and adults with CF reduces the frequency of vitamin A deficiency disorders, improves general and respiratory health and affects the frequency of vitamin A toxicity.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Additionally we searched several ongoing trials registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry.\nMost recent database searches: 01 June 2018.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies comparing all preparations of oral vitamin A, carotenes or retinoids (or in combination), used as a supplement compared to placebo at any dose, for at least three months, in people with CF (diagnosed by sweat tests or genetic testing) with and without pancreatic insufficiency.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors individually assessed study quality and extracted data on outcome measures. The authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE system. Investigators were contacted to retrieve missing quantitative data.\nMain results\nNo studies of vitamin A or other retinoid supplementation were eligible for inclusion. However, one randomised study of beta (β)-carotene supplementation involving 24 people with CF who were receiving pancreatic enzyme substitution was included. The study compared successive β-carotene supplementation periods (high dose followed by low dose) compared to placebo. The results for the low-dose supplementation period should be interpreted with caution, due to the lack of a wash-out period after the high-dose supplementation.\nThe included study did not report on two of the review's primary outcomes (vitamin A deficiency disorders and mortality); results for our third primary outcome of growth and nutritional status (reported as z score for height) showed no difference between supplementation and placebo, mean difference (MD) -0.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.89 to 0.43) (low-quality evidence). With regards to secondary outcomes, supplementation with high-dose β-carotene for three months led to significantly fewer days of systemic antibiotics required to treat pulmonary exacerbations, compared to controls, MD -15 days (95% CI -27.60 to -2.40); however, this was not maintained in the second three-month section of the study when the level of β-carotene supplementation was reduced, MD -8 days (95% CI -18.80 to 2.80) (low-quality evidence). There were no statistically significant effects between groups in lung function (low-quality evidence) and no adverse events were observed (low-quality evidence). Supplementation affected levels of β-carotene in plasma, but not vitamin A levels. The study did not report on quality of life or toxicity.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSince no randomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies on retinoid supplementation were identified, no conclusion on the supplementation of vitamin A in people with CF can be drawn. Additionally, due to methodological limitations in the included study, also reflected in the low-quality evidence judged following the specific evidence grading system (GRADE), no clear conclusions on β-carotene supplementation can be drawn. Until further data are available, country- or region-specific guidelines regarding these practices should be followed.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Review question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We reviewed the evidence regarding the effect of regular vitamin A or vitamin A-like (carotenes or other retinoids) supplements in children and adults with cystic fibrosis."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8355
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInsufficient consumption of fruits and vegetables in childhood increases the risk of future non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease. Testing the effects of interventions to increase consumption of fruit and vegetables, including those focused on specific child-feeding strategies or broader multicomponent interventions targeting the home or childcare environment is required to assess the potential to reduce this disease burden.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and associated adverse events of interventions designed to increase the consumption of fruit, vegetables or both amongst children aged five years and under.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two clinical trials registries to identify eligible trials on 25 January 2020. We searched Proquest Dissertations and Theses in November 2019. We reviewed reference lists of included trials and handsearched three international nutrition journals. We contacted authors of included trials to identify further potentially relevant trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials, including cluster-randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials, of any intervention primarily targeting consumption of fruit, vegetables or both among children aged five years and under, and incorporating a dietary or biochemical assessment of fruit or vegetable consumption. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of identified papers; a third review author resolved disagreements.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risks of bias of included trials; a third review author resolved disagreements. Due to unexplained heterogeneity, we used random-effects models in meta-analyses for the primary review outcomes where we identified sufficient trials. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) to account for the heterogeneity of fruit and vegetable consumption measures. We conducted assessments of risks of bias and evaluated the quality of evidence (GRADE approach) using Cochrane procedures.\nMain results\nWe included 80 trials with 218 trial arms and 12,965 participants. Fifty trials examined the impact of child-feeding practices (e.g. repeated food exposure) in increasing child vegetable intake. Fifteen trials examined the impact of parent nutrition education only in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. Fourteen trials examined the impact of multicomponent interventions (e.g. parent nutrition education and preschool policy changes) in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. Two trials examined the effect of a nutrition education intervention delivered to children in increasing child fruit and vegetable intake. One trial examined the impact of a child-focused mindfulness intervention in increasing vegetable intake.\nWe judged 23 of the 80 included trials as free from high risks of bias across all domains. Performance, detection and attrition bias were the most common domains judged at high risk of bias for the remaining trials.\nThere is low-quality evidence that child-feeding practices versus no intervention may have a small positive effect on child vegetable consumption, equivalent to an increase of 5.30 grams as-desired consumption of vegetables (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.71; 19 trials, 2140 participants; mean post-intervention follow-up = 8.3 weeks). Multicomponent interventions versus no intervention has a small effect on child consumption of fruit and vegetables (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.55; 9 trials, 2961 participants; moderate-quality evidence; mean post-intervention follow-up = 5.4 weeks), equivalent to an increase of 0.34 cups of fruit and vegetables a day. It is uncertain whether there are any short-term differences in child consumption of fruit and vegetables in meta-analyses of trials examining parent nutrition education versus no intervention (SMD 0.13, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.28; 11 trials, 3050 participants; very low-quality evidence; mean post-intervention follow-up = 13.2 weeks). We were unable to pool child nutrition education interventions in meta-analysis; both trials reported a positive intervention effect on child consumption of fruit and vegetables (low-quality evidence).\nVery few trials reported long-term effectiveness (6 trials), cost effectiveness (1 trial) or unintended adverse consequences of interventions (2 trials), limiting our ability to assess these outcomes. Trials reported receiving governmental or charitable funds, except for four trials reporting industry funding.\nAuthors' conclusions\nDespite identifying 80 eligible trials of various intervention approaches, the evidence for how to increase children's fruit and vegetable consumption remains limited in terms of quality of evidence and magnitude of effect. Of the types of interventions identified, there was moderate-quality evidence that multicomponent interventions probably lead to, and low-quality evidence that child-feeding practice may lead to, only small increases in fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under. It is uncertain whether parent nutrition education or child nutrition education interventions alone are effective in increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under. Our confidence in effect estimates for all intervention approaches, with the exception of multicomponent interventions, is limited on the basis of the very low to low-quality evidence. Long-term follow-up of at least 12 months is required and future research should adopt more rigorous methods to advance the field.\nThis is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.\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": "Child-feeding practices may increase fruit and vegetable intake by children (by 5.30 grams a day), but this conclusion is based on low-quality evidence and our confidence in this effect is limited. Multicomponent interventions probably increase fruit and vegetable intake by children (by 0.34 cups a day), based on moderate-quality evidence. It is uncertain whether parent nutrition education interventions increase children's fruit and vegetable intake.\nThis is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8356
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInvasive pneumococcal disease is associated with significant mortality and many countries have introduced routine pneumococcal vaccination into their childhood immunisation programmes. Whilst pneumococcal disease in cystic fibrosis is uncommon, pneumococcal immunisation may offer some protection against pulmonary exacerbations caused by this pathogen. In the USA and UK pneumococcal vaccination is currently recommended for all children and adults with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy of pneumococcal vaccines in reducing morbidity in people with cystic fibrosis.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. In addition, the pharmaceutical manufacturers of the polysaccharide and conjugate pneumococcal vaccines were approached.\nDate of the most recent search: 27 June 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing pneumococcal vaccination (with either a polysaccharide or conjugate pneumococcal vaccine) with non-vaccination or placebo in children or adults with cystic fibrosis were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nNo relevant trials were identified.\nMain results\nThere are no trials included in this review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAs no trials were identified we cannot draw conclusions on the efficacy of routine pneumococcal immunisation in people with cystic fibrosis in reducing their morbidity or mortality. As many countries now include pneumococcal immunisation in their routine childhood vaccination schedule it is unlikely that future randomised controlled trials will be initiated. Rigorously conducted epidemiological studies may offer the opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in reducing morbidity and mortality in people with cystic fibrosis.\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": "Evidence is current to 27 June 2016."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8357
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIvermectin, an antiparasitic agent, inhibits the replication of viruses in vitro. The molecular hypothesis of ivermectin's antiviral mode of action suggests an inhibitory effect on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in early stages of infection. Currently, evidence on ivermectin for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 treatment is conflicting.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID-19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS-CoV-2 (postexposure prophylaxis).\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science (Emerging Citation Index and Science Citation Index), WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and HTA database weekly to identify completed and ongoing trials without language restrictions to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ivermectin to standard of care, placebo, or another proven intervention for treatment of people with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, irrespective of disease severity or treatment setting, and for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Co-interventions had to be the same in both study arms.\nFor this review update, we reappraised eligible trials for research integrity: only RCTs prospectively registered in a trial registry according to WHO guidelines for clinical trial registration were eligible for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe assessed RCTs for bias, using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for outcomes in the following settings and populations: 1) to treat inpatients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, 2) to treat outpatients with mild COVID-19 (outcomes: mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, (serious) adverse events, quality of life, and viral clearance), and 3) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection (outcomes: SARS-CoV-2 infection, development of COVID-19 symptoms, admission to hospital, mortality, adverse events and quality of life).\nMain results\nWe excluded seven of the 14 trials included in the previous review version; six were not prospectively registered and one was non-randomized. This updated review includes 11 trials with 3409 participants investigating ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo. No trial investigated ivermectin for prevention of infection or compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. Five trials treated participants with moderate COVID-19 (inpatient settings); six treated mild COVID-19 (outpatient settings). Eight trials were double-blind and placebo-controlled, and three were open-label. We assessed around 50% of the trial results as low risk of bias.\nWe identified 31 ongoing trials. In addition, there are 28 potentially eligible trials without publication of results, or with disparities in the reporting of the methods and results, held in ‘awaiting classification’ until the trial authors clarify questions upon request.\nIvermectin for treating COVID-19 in inpatient settings with moderate-to-severe disease\nWe are uncertain whether ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo reduces or increases all-cause mortality at 28 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 2.51; 3 trials, 230 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or clinical worsening, assessed by participants with new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death at day 28 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.04; 2 trials, 118 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or serious adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.07 to 35.89; 2 trials, 197 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ivermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus placebo may have little or no effect on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants discharged alive at day 28 (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35; 1 trial, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.79; 3 trials, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at 7 days (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.58; 3 trials, 231 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial investigated quality of life at any time point.\nIvermectin for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings with asymptomatic or mild disease\nIvermectin plus standard of care compared to standard of care plus/minus placebo probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at day 28 (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.25; 6 trials, 2860 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and little or no effect on quality of life, measured with the PROMIS Global-10 scale (physical component mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.98; and mental component MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.08 to 1.08; 1358 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ivermectin may have little or no effect on clinical worsening, assessed by admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.20 to 6.02; 2 trials, 590 participants; low-certainty evidence); on clinical improvement, assessed by the number of participants with all initial symptoms resolved up to 14 days (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.36; 2 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence); on serious adverse events (RR 2.27, 95% CI 0.62 to 8.31; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); on any adverse events during the trial period (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.76; 5 trials, 1502 participants; low-certainty evidence); and on viral clearance at day 7 compared to placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48; 2 trials, 331 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the trials reporting duration of symptoms were eligible for meta-analysis.\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor outpatients, there is currently low- to high-certainty evidence that ivermectin has no beneficial effect for people with COVID-19. Based on the very low-certainty evidence for inpatients, we are still uncertain whether ivermectin prevents death or clinical worsening or increases serious adverse events, while there is low-certainty evidence that it has no beneficial effect regarding clinical improvement, viral clearance and adverse events. No evidence is available on ivermectin to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In this update, certainty of evidence increased through higher quality trials including more participants. According to this review's living approach, we will continually update our search.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"How up to date is this evidence?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The systematic literature search is up to date to 16 December 2021. Additionally, we included trials with > 1000 participants up to April 2022."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8358
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPeritonsillar abscess is a common infection presenting as a collection of pus in the peritonsillar area. The condition is characterised by a severe sore throat, difficulty in swallowing and pain on swallowing, fever and malaise, and trismus. Needle aspiration and incision and drainage are the two main treatment modalities currently used in the treatment of this condition. The effectiveness of one versus the other has not been clearly demonstrated and remains an area of debate.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and risks of needle aspiration versus incision and drainage for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess in older children (eight years of age or older), adolescents and adults.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 25 August 2016.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials comparing needle aspiration with incision and drainage.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were recurrence rate (proportion of patients needing repeat intervention) and adverse effects associated with the intervention. Secondary outcomes were time to resumption of normal diet, complications of the disease process and symptom scores. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics.\nMain results\nWe included 11 studies (674 participants). The risk of bias was high or unclear in all of the included studies. All studies compared needle aspiration to incision and drainage.\nAll but one of the 11 studies reported on the primary outcome of recurrence. When we pooled data from the 10 studies the recurrence rate was higher in the needle aspiration group compared with incision and drainage: risk ratio (RR) 3.74 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.63 to 8.59; 612 participants). We detected moderate heterogeneity in this analysis (I2 = 48%). In interpreting the pooled result it is important to note that the evidence for this outcome was of very low quality.\nNone of the other outcomes (adverse effects of the intervention, time to resumption of normal diet, complications of the disease process and symptom scores) were consistently measured across all studies.\nOnly three studies reported on adverse effects/events associated with the intervention and only one such event in a single patient was reported (post-procedure bleeding following incision and drainage: 1/28, 3.6%) (very low-quality evidence).\nTime to resumption of normal diet was compared in two studies; neither found an obvious difference between needle aspiration and incision and drainage (very low-quality evidence).\nOnly three studies stated that they would report complications of the disease process. In these three studies, the only complication reported was admission to hospital for dehydration in two patients who underwent incision and drainage (2/13, 6.7%).\nSymptom scores were measured in four studies; three evaluated pain using different scales and one other symptoms. The data could not be pooled in a meta-analysis. Two studies evaluating procedural pain reported this to be lower in the needle aspiration groups. One study found comparable rates of pain resolution at five days post-intervention between groups. The quality of the evidence for symptom scores was very low.\nAuthors' conclusions\nAlthough a number of studies have sought to evaluate whether or not needle aspiration or incision and drainage is more effective in patients with peritonsillar abscess, there is no high-quality evidence to allow a firm conclusion to be drawn and the answer remains uncertain. Very low-quality evidence suggests that incision and drainage may be associated with a lower chance of recurrence than needle aspiration. There is some very low-quality evidence to suggest that needle aspiration is less painful.\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 11 studies with a total of 674 participants. The participants in the studies were aged from 8 to 79. The studies were conducted in a number of countries (six from Pakistan, two from the USA, one from Taiwan and two from South Africa). All but one of the 11 studies reported the difference in recurrence rate between needle aspiration and incision and drainage. Four studies compared symptom scores associated with the procedure and two studies compared time to resumption of normal diet. Three studies reported adverse effects/events associated with the intervention. Two studies reported complications of the disease process itself.\nThe evidence is current to August 2016."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8359
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe Internet could provide a means of delivering secondary prevention programmes to people with coronary heart disease (CHD).\nObjectives\nTo determine the effectiveness of Internet-based interventions targeting lifestyle changes and medicines management for the secondary prevention of CHD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, in December 2014. We also searched six other databases in October 2014, and three trials registers in January 2015 together with reference checking and handsearching to identify additional studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating Internet-delivered secondary prevention interventions aimed at people with CHD.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed evidence quality using the GRADE approach and presented this in a 'Summary of findings' table.\nMain results\nEighteen trials met our inclusion criteria. Eleven studies are complete (1392 participants), and seven are ongoing. Of the completed studies, seven interventions are broad, targeting the lifestyle management of CHD, and four focused on physical activity promotion. The comparison group in trials was usual care (n = 6), minimal intervention (n = 3), or traditional cardiac rehabilitation (n = 2).\nWe found no effects of Internet-based interventions for all-cause mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 1.63; participants = 895; studies = 6; low-quality evidence). There was only one case of cardiovascular mortality in a control group (participants = 895; studies = 6). No incidences of non-fatal re-infarction were reported across any of the studies. We found no effects for revascularisation (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.27; participants = 895; studies = 6; low-quality evidence).\nWe found no effects for total cholesterol (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.28; participants = 439; studies = 4; low-quality evidence), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.07; participants = 437; studies = 4; low-quality evidence), or triglycerides (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.19; participants = 439; studies = 4; low-quality evidence). We did not pool the data for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol due to considerable heterogeneity. Two out of six trials measuring LDL cholesterol detected favourable intervention effects, and four trials reported no effects. Seven studies measured systolic and diastolic blood pressure; we did not pool the data due to substantial heterogeneity. For systolic blood pressure, two studies showed a reduction with the intervention, but the remaining studies showed no effect. For diastolic blood pressure, two studies showed a reduction with the intervention, one study showed an increase with the intervention, and the remaining four studies showed no effect.\nFive trials measured health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We could draw no conclusions from one study due to incomplete reporting; one trial reported no effect; two studies reported a short- and medium-term effect respectively; and one study reported both short- and medium-term effects.\nFive trials assessed dietary outcomes: two reported favourable effects, and three reported no effects. Eight studies assessed physical activity: five of these trials reported no physical activity effects, and three reported effectiveness. Trials are yet to measure the impact of these interventions on compliance with medication.\nTwo studies measured healthcare utilisation: one reported no effects, and the other reported increased usage of healthcare services compared to a control group in the intervention group at nine months' follow-up. Two trials collected cost data: both reported that Internet-delivered interventions are likely to be cost-effective.\nIn terms of the risk of bias, the majority of studies reported appropriate randomisation and appropriate concealment of randomisation processes. A lack of blinding resulted in a risk of performance bias in seven studies, and a risk of detection bias in five trials. Two trials were at risk of attrition bias, and five were at risk for reporting bias.\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn general, evidence was of low quality due to lack of blinding, loss to follow-up, and uncertainty around the effect size. Few studies measured clinical events, and of those that did, a very small number of events were reported, and therefore no firm conclusions can be made. Similarly, there was no clear evidence of effect for cardiovascular risk factors, although again the number of studies reporting these was small. There was some evidence for beneficial effects on HRQOL, dietary outcomes, and physical activity, although firm conclusions cannot yet be made. The effects on healthcare utilisation and cost-effectiveness are also inconclusive, and trials are yet to measure the impact of Internet interventions on compliance with medication. The comparison groups differed across trials, and there were insufficient studies with usable data for subgroup analyses. We intend to study the intensity of comparison groups in future updates of this review when more evidence is available. The completion of the ongoing trials will add to the evidence base.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study characteristics\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence is current to December 2014. We included 18 studies. Eleven are complete, and seven are ongoing. In the completed studies, 1392 people with coronary heart disease were recruited. The average age of participants ranged from 54.9 to 66.27 years. The majority of people recruited were men. Studies were carried out worldwide, and in a variety of healthcare settings. Seven studies tested broad programmes targeting multiple lifestyle factors related to heart disease. Four studies tested programmes focused only on increasing levels of physical activity. The length of the programmes in the included studies ranged from six weeks to one year. These programmes were compared to no intervention in six studies, some support in three studies, and full traditional rehabilitation in two studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8360
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSmoking bans or restrictions can assist in eliminating nonsmokers' exposure to the dangers of secondhand smoke and can reduce tobacco consumption amongst smokers themselves. Evidence exists identifying the impact of tobacco control regulations and interventions implemented in general workplaces and at an individual level. However, it is important that we also review the evidence for smoking bans at a meso- or organisational level, to identify their impact on reducing the burden of exposure to tobacco smoke. Our review assesses evidence for meso- or organisational-level tobacco control bans or policies in a number of specialist settings, including public healthcare facilities, higher education and correctional facilities.\nObjectives\nTo assess the extent to which institutional smoking bans may reduce passive smoke exposure and active smoking, and affect other health-related outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the reference lists of identified studies. We contacted authors to identify completed or ongoing studies eligible for inclusion in this review. We also checked websites of state agencies and organisations, such as trial registries. Date of latest searches was 22nd June 2015.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered studies that reported the effects of tobacco bans or policies, whether complete or partial, on reducing secondhand smoke exposure, tobacco consumption, smoking prevalence and other health outcomes, in public healthcare, higher educational and correctional facilities, from 2005 onwards.\nThe minimum standard for inclusion was having a settings-level policy or ban implemented in the study, and a minimum of six months follow-up for measures of smoking behaviour. We included quasi-experimental studies (i.e. controlled before-and-after studies), interrupted time series as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group, and uncontrolled pre- and post-ban data.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo or more review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. Due to variation in the measurement of outcomes we did not conduct a meta-analysis for all of the studies included in this review, but carried out a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect meta-analysis, pooling 11 of the included studies. We evaluated all studies using a qualitative narrative synthesis.\nMain results\nWe included 17 observational studies in this review. We found no randomized controlled trials. Twelve studies are based in hospitals, three in prisons and two in universities. Three studies used a controlled before-and-after design, with another site used for comparison. The remaining 14 studies used an uncontrolled before-and-after study design. Five studies reported evidence from two participant groups, including staff and either patients or prisoners (depending on specialist setting), with the 12 remaining studies investigating only one participant group.\nThe four studies (two in prisons, two in hospitals) providing health outcomes data reported an effect of reduced secondhand smoke exposure and reduced mortality associated with smoking-related illnesses. No studies included in the review measured cotinine levels to validate secondhand smoke exposure. Eleven studies reporting active smoking rates with 12,485 participants available for pooling, but with substantial evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 72%). Heterogeneity was lower in subgroups defined by setting, and provided evidence for an effect of tobacco bans on reducing active smoking rates. An analysis exploring heterogeneity within hospital settings showed evidence of an effect on reducing active smoking rates in both staff (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval ( CI) 0.64 to 0.78) and patients (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.98), but heterogeneity remained in the staff subgroup (I² = 76%). In prisons, despite evidence of reduced mortality associated with smoking-related illnesses in two studies, there was no evidence of effect on active smoking rates (1 study, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.16).\nWe judged the quality of the evidence to be low, using the GRADE approach, as the included studies are all observational.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found evidence of an effect of settings-based smoking policies on reducing smoking rates in hospitals and universities. In prisons, reduced mortality rates and reduced exposure to secondhand smoke were reported. However, we rated the evidence base as low quality. We therefore need more robust studies assessing the evidence for smoking bans and policies in these important specialist settings.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found no relevant high-quality studies to include in our review. Future high-quality research may lead to a change in these conclusions and it is not possible to draw firm conclusions from the current evidence. We need more research from larger studies to investigate smoking bans and policies in these important settings."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8361
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSchizophrenia and other psychoses are thought to be associated with a substantial increase in aggressive behaviour, violence and violent offending. However, acts of aggression or violence committed by people with severe mental illness are rare and circumscribed to a small minority of individuals. We know little about the frequency and variability of violent episodes for people with schizophrenia who present chronic or recurrent aggressive episodes, and of available interventions to reduce such problems. A psychological intervention, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), aims to challenge dysfunctional thoughts and has been used since the mid-1970s to improve mental health and emotional disorders. CBT includes different interventional procedures, such as cognitive therapy, elements of behavioural therapy, problem-solving interventions, and coping skills training, among others. Although CBT presents much diversity, interventions are characteristically problem-focused, goal-directed, future-oriented, time-limited (about 12 to 20 sessions over four to six months), and empirically based. CBT has shown clinically beneficial effects in persistent positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia and its use as an add-on therapy to medication in the treatment of schizophrenia is supported by treatment guidelines. However, several Cochrane Reviews recently concluded that, due to the low quality of evidence available, no firm conclusions can currently be made regarding the effectiveness of adding CBT to standard care for people with schizophrenia, or about CBT compared to other psychosocial treatments for people with schizophrenia. Whereas CBT is not an emergency or crisis intervention that acts immediately on the known or unknown triggers underlying aggressive behaviour, might be a timely treatment used to manage persistent aggression or repeated aggressive episodes in people with schizophrenia.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of cognitive behavioural therapy(CBT) plus standard care versus standard care alone for people with schizophrenia and persistent aggression.\nSearch methods\nOn 18 January 2023, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP. We also inspected references of all identified studies for more studies.\nSelection criteria\nAll randomised controlled trials comparing CBT plus standard care with standard care alone for people with schizophrenia and persistent aggression.\nData collection and analysis\nWe independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated mean differences (MD) and their 95%CIs for outcomes reported with the same measurement scale. Post hoc, for counts over person-time outcomes, we calculated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and their 95%CIs. If feasible, we combined study outcomes with the random-effects model. We assessed the risk of bias for included studies and created a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach.\nMain results\nWe included two studies with 184 participants with psychotic disorder (mainly schizophrenia) and violence. The studies were run in forensic units and prison. Both studies were at high risk of bias on blinding (performance and detection bias).\nCBT plus standard care as compared with standard care may result in little to no difference in the frequency of physical violence at end of trial (IRR 0.52; 95% CI 0.23 to 1.18) and follow-up (IRR 0.86; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.68). The confidence interval did not exclude the null effect, and the certainty of the evidence is very low due to lack of blinding and to the small sample size.\nOne study reported no deaths in both arms and zero serious and other adverse events. The other study did not report any figure for deaths or adverse events.\nCBT plus standard care as compared with standard care may result in little to no difference in leaving the study early for any reason (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.53 to 2.00). Confidence interval did not exclude the null effect and the certainty of the evidence is low due to lack of blinding and the small sample size.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWhereas the evidence from only two studies with 184 participants suggests the use of CBT plus standard care may reduce some aggressive behaviours in patients with schizophrenia, the grading of the certainty of the evidence is very low. It implies that there is not yet reliable evidence to guide clinical decisions and therefore more evidence is needed to get a more precise estimate of the effect of the intervention. Currently, we have very little confidence in the effect estimate, and the true effect could be substantially different from its estimate.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to find out if cognitive behavioural therapy was better than standard care to reduce:\n• aggressive behaviours;\n• agitation;\n• self-harm;\n• dropouts from treatment.\nWe wanted to find out if cognitive behavioural therapy was better than standard care to improve:\n• overall mental state;\n• well-being.\nWe also wanted to find out if cognitive behavioural therapy was associated with any unwanted effects."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8362
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nConventionally used soybean oil-based lipid emulsion (S-LE) have high polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) content and phytosterols that may contribute to adverse effects in preterm infants. The newer lipid emulsions (LE) from different lipid sources are currently available for use in preterm infants.\nObjectives\nTo compare the safety and efficacy of all LE for parenteral nutrition (PN) in preterm infants (less than 37 weeks' gestation) including preterm infants with surgical conditions or parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease (PNALD)/cholestasis using direct comparisons and pair-wise meta-analyses.\nSearch methods\nWe used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1946 to 18 June 2018), Embase (1974 to 18 July 2018), CINAHL (1982 to 18 June 2018), MIDRIS (1971 to 31 May 2018), conference proceedings, trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO's Trials Registry and Platform), and reference lists of retrieved articles.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies in preterm infants with or without surgical conditions or PNALD within the first six months of life.\nData collection and analysis\nData collection and analysis conformed to the methods of Cochrane Neonatal. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence for important outcomes in addition to reporting statistical significance of results.\nMain results\nWe included 29 studies (n = 2037) in this review. LE were classified in three broad groups: 1. all fish oil-containing LE including pure fish oil-LE (F-LE) and multisource LE (e.g. medium-chain triglycerides (MCT)-olive-fish-soybean oil-LE (MOFS-LE), MCT-fish-soybean oil-LE (MFS-LE) and olive-fish-soybean oil-LE (OFS-LE); 2. conventional S-LE; 3. alternative-LE (e.g. MCT-soybean oil-LE (MS-LE), olive-soybean oil-LE and borage oil-based LE).\nWe considered the following broad comparisons: fish oil LE versus non-fish oil LE; fish oil LE versus another fish oil LE; alternative-LE versus S-LE; alternative-LE versus another alternative-LE in preterm infants less than 37 weeks' gestation, preterm infants with surgical conditions and preterm infants with PNALD/cholestasis. Separate subgroup comparisons of each LE preparation were included within these broader groups.\nMost studies in preterm infants used PN for mean duration of four weeks or less and for longer duration in infants with cholestasis or surgical conditions.\nWe defined the primary outcome of PNALD/cholestasis as conjugated bilirubin (Cbil) 2 mg/dL or greater and resolution of PNALD/cholestasis as Cbil less than 2 mg/dL. There was heterogeneity in definitions used by the included studies with Cbil cut-offs ranging from 17.1 μmol/L (1 mg/dL) up to 50 μmol/L (about 3 mg/dL).\nIn preterm infants, meta-analysis found no evidence of a difference in the incidence of PNALD/cholestasis (Cbil cut-off: 2 mg/dl) between fish oil-LEs and all non-fish oil LEs (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 1.56; typical risk difference (RD) –0.03, 95% CI –0.08 to 0.02; 4 studies; n = 328; low-quality evidence).\nWe also considered an outcome allowing for any definition of PNALD (different Cbil cutoffs). In the meta-analysis for PNALD/cholestasis, using any definition and restricted to low or unclear risk of bias studies, there was no evidence of a difference between fish oil LE and all non-fish oil LE for incidence of cholestasis (typical RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.21; typical RD –0.02, 95% CI –0.05 to 0.02; 10 studies; n = 1024; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of difference in subgroup meta-analyses of individual LE types in any comparison.\nIn preterm infants with surgical conditions or cholestasis, there was only one small study each reporting no evidence of a difference in incidence or resolution of cholestasis respectively with use of a pure F-LE versus S-LE (using a Cbil cut-off of 2 mg/dL).\nIn preterm infants with PNALD/cholestasis (using any definition), the meta-analysis showed significantly less cholestasis with the use of fish oil-LE compared to S-LE (typical RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.91; typical RD –0.39, 95% CI –0.65 to –0.12; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 2 to 9; 2 studies; n = 40; very low-quality evidence). However, this outcome had a very low number of participants from two small studies with methodological differences, one of which was terminated early, increasing the uncertainty about effect estimates.\nThere were no differences between LE types in pair-wise meta-analyses for growth in preterm infants. There was paucity of studies in preterm infants with surgical conditions or cholestasis to perform meta-analyses for growth and most other outcomes.\nIn the secondary outcomes for preterm infants, there was no difference between fish-oil LE and non-fish oil LE in meta-analysis for severe retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) (stage 3 or greater, or requiring surgery: typical RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.16; typical RD –0.03, 95% CI –0.07 to 0.02; 7 studies; n = 731; very low-quality evidence). There were no differences in the LE types in pair-wise meta-analyses for death, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), ventilation duration, patent ductus arteriosus, sepsis, necrotising enterocolitis, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, jaundice, hyperglycaemia, hypertriglyceridaemia, intrahepatocellular lipid content and conjugated bilirubin levels in any comparison.\nIn surgical infants, one study (n = 19) reported no differences in death, sepsis rates, Cbil and neurodevelopmental outcomes with pure F-LE versus S-LE.\nIn infants with cholestasis, there were no evidence of differences in death or sepsis in meta-analyses between fish oil-LE and S-LE; (2 studies; n = 40; very low-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nIn the current review, we did not find any particular LE with or without fish oil to be better than another LE in preterm infants for prevention of PNALD/cholestasis, growth, mortality, ROP, BPD and other neonatal outcomes.\nIn preterm infants with surgical conditions or cholestasis, there is currently insufficient evidence from randomised studies to determine with any certainty if fish oil LEs offer advantage in prevention or resolution of cholestasis or in any other clinical outcome.\nFurther research, with larger well-designed trials, is warranted to evaluate the ideal composition of LE in preterm infants and the role of fish oil-containing and other LEs in the prevention and resolution of PNALD, ROP and other clinical outcomes.\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": "in the population of preterm infants, without liver disease or surgical conditions, no particular LE was better than another for growth, liver disease, death, retinopathy (eye disease), infection and chronic lung disease.\nWhile there was very low quality and limited evidence to suggest that fish oil-based LE may improve liver disease-related outcomes in infants with pre-existing liver disease, this evidence was based on a limited number of infants from two small studies, one of which was terminated early, and no certain conclusions can be drawn."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8363
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nPine bark (Pinus spp.) extract is rich in bioflavonoids, predominantly proanthocyanidins, which are antioxidants. Commercially-available extract supplements are marketed for preventing or treating various chronic conditions associated with oxidative stress. This is an update of a previously published review.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of pine bark extract supplements for treating chronic disorders.\nSearch methods\nWe searched three databases and three trial registries; latest search: 30 September 2019.\nWe contacted the manufacturers of pine bark extracts to identify additional studies and hand-searched bibliographies of included studies.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pine bark extract supplements in adults or children with any chronic disorder.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we pooled data in meta-analyses. We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of evidence.\nPrimary outcomes were participant- and investigator-reported clinical outcomes directly related to each disorder and all-cause mortality. We also assessed adverse events and biomarkers of oxidative stress.\nMain results\nThis review included 27 RCTs (22 parallel and five cross-over designs; 1641 participants) evaluating pine bark extract supplements across 10 chronic disorders: asthma (two studies; 86 participants); attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (one study; 61 participants), cardiovascular disease (CVD) and risk factors (seven studies; 338 participants), chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) (two studies; 60 participants), diabetes mellitus (DM) (six studies; 339 participants), erectile dysfunction (three studies; 277 participants), female sexual dysfunction (one study; 83 participants), osteoarthritis (three studies; 293 participants), osteopenia (one study; 44 participants) and traumatic brain injury (one study; 60 participants).\nTwo studies exclusively recruited children; the remainder recruited adults. Trials lasted between four weeks and six months. Placebo was the control in 24 studies. Overall risk of bias was low for four, high for one and unclear for 22 studies.\nIn adults with asthma, we do not know whether pine bark extract increases change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted/forced vital capacity (FVC) (mean difference (MD) 7.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.19 to 12.21; one study; 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence), increases change in FEV1 % predicted (MD 7.00, 95% CI 0.10 to 13.90; one study; 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence), improves asthma symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.85, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.58; one study; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or increases the number of people able to stop using albuterol inhalers (RR 6.00, 95% CI 1.97 to 18.25; one study; 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nIn children with ADHD, we do not know whether pine bark extract decreases inattention and hyperactivity assessed by parent- and teacher-rating scales (narrative synthesis; one study; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or increases the change in visual-motoric coordination and concentration (MD 3.37, 95% CI 2.41 to 4.33; one study; 57 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nIn participants with CVD, we do not know whether pine bark extract decreases diastolic blood pressure (MD -3.00 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.51 to -1.49; one study; 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence); increases HDL cholesterol (MD 0.05 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.11; one study; 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or decreases LDL cholesterol (MD -0.03 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.00; one study; 61 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nIn participants with CVI, we do not know whether pine bark extract decreases pain scores (MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.16; one study; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence), increases the disappearance of pain (RR 25.0, 95% CI 1.58 to 395.48; one study; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or increases physician-judged treatment efficacy (RR 4.75, 95% CI 1.97 to 11.48; 1 study; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nIn type 2 DM, we do not know whether pine bark extract leads to a greater reduction in fasting blood glucose (MD 1.0 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; one study; 48 participants;very low-certainty evidence) or decreases HbA1c (MD -0.90 %, 95% CI -1.78 to -0.02; 1 study; 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In a mixed group of participants with type 1 and type 2 DM we do not know whether pine bark extract decreases HbA1c (MD -0.20 %, 95% CI -1.83 to 1.43; one study; 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nIn men with erectile dysfunction, we do not know whether pine bark extract supplements increase International Index of Erectile Function-5 scores (not pooled; two studies; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence). In women with sexual dysfunction, we do not know whether pine bark extract increases satisfaction as measured by the Female Sexual Function Index (MD 5.10, 95% CI 3.49 to 6.71; one study; 75 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or leads to a greater reduction of pain scores (MD 4.30, 95% CI 2.69 to 5.91; one study; 75 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nIn adults with osteoarthritis of the knee, we do not know whether pine bark extract decreases composite Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores (MD -730.00, 95% CI -1011.95 to -448.05; one study; 37 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication (MD -18.30, 95% CI -25.14 to -11.46; one study; 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know whether pine bark extract increases bone alkaline phosphatase in post-menopausal women with osteopenia (MD 1.16 ug/L, 95% CI -2.37 to 4.69; one study; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nIn individuals with traumatic brain injury, we do not know whether pine bark extract decreases cognitive failure scores (MD -2.24, 95% CI -11.17 to 6.69; one study; 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or post-concussion symptoms (MD -0.76, 95% CI -5.39 to 3.87; one study; 56 participants; very low-certainty evidence).\nFor most comparisons, studies did not report outcomes of hospital admissions or serious adverse events.\nAuthors' conclusions\nSmall sample sizes, limited numbers of RCTs per condition, variation in outcome measures, and poor reporting of the included RCTs mean no definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy or safety of pine bark extract supplements are possible.\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 risk of bias was low for four studies, high for one and unclear for 22 studies. By this we mean the extent to which the methods used in a study enable it to determine the truth. The certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes across all chronic diseases in the included studies."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8364
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nGabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000.\nObjectives\nTo assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.\nSearch methods\nFor this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing gabapentin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.\nMain results\nWe included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.\nIn postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nIn painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (23%) (RR 1.7 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.0); NNT 6.6 (5.0 to 10); 6 studies, 1331 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nFor all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%).\nAuthors' conclusions\nGabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "The evidence was mostly of moderate quality. This means that the research provides a good indication of the likely effect. The likelihood that the effect will be substantially different is moderate."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8365
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBone is the most common site of metastatic disease associated with breast cancer (BC). Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, and novel targeted therapies such as denosumab inhibit other key bone metabolism pathways. We have studied these agents in both early breast cancer and advanced breast cancer settings. This is an update of the review originally published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2005 and 2012.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of bisphosphonates and other bone agents in addition to anti-cancer treatment: (i) in women with early breast cancer (EBC); (ii) in women with advanced breast cancer without bone metastases (ABC); and (iii) in women with metastatic breast cancer and bone metastases (BCBM).\nSearch methods\nIn this review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 19 September 2016.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: (a) one treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent with the same treatment without a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent; (b) treatment with one bisphosphonate versus treatment with a different bisphosphonate; (c) treatment with a bisphosphonate versus another bone-acting agent of a different mechanism of action (e.g. denosumab); and (d) immediate treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent versus delayed treatment of the same bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was bone metastases for EBC and ABC, and a skeletal-related event (SRE) for BCBM. We derived risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and the meta-analyses used random-effects models. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and disease-free survival for EBC; we derived hazard ratios (HRs) for these time-to-event outcomes where possible. We collected toxicity and quality-of-life information. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes in each treatment setting.\nMain results\nWe included 44 RCTs involving 37,302 women.\nIn women with EBC, bisphosphonates were associated with a reduced risk of bone metastases compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate (RR 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03, 11 studies; 15,005 women; moderate-quality evidence with no significant heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates provided an overall survival benefit with time-to-event data (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; P = 0.04; 9 studies; 13,949 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity). Subgroup analysis by menopausal status showed a survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.90; P = 0.001; 4 studies; 6048 women; high-quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity) but no survival benefit for premenopausal women (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22; P = 0.78; 2 studies; 3501 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). There was evidence of no effect of bisphosphonates on disease-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% 0.87 to 1.02; P = 0.13; 7 studies; 12,578 women; high-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity present) however subgroup analyses showed a disease-free survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women only (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 8314 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates did not significantly reduce the incidence of fractures when compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08, P = 0.13, 6 studies, 7602 women; moderate-quality evidence due to wide confidence intervals). We await mature overall survival and disease-free survival results for denosumab trials.\nIn women with ABC without clinically evident bone metastases, there was no evidence of an effect of bisphosphonates on bone metastases (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43; P = 0.86; 3 studies; 330 women; moderate-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) or overall survival (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; P = 0.28; 3 studies; 330 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates however the confidence intervals were wide. One study reported a trend towards an extended period of time without a SRE with bisphosphonate compared to placebo (low-quality evidence). One study reported quality of life and there was no apparent difference in scores between bisphosphonate and placebo (moderate-quality evidence).\nIn women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduced the SRE risk by 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95; P = 0.003; 9 studies; 2810 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity) compared with placebo/no bisphosphonates. This benefit persisted when administering either intravenous or oral bisphosphonates versus placebo. Bisphosphonates delayed the median time to a SRE with a median ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.58; P < 0.00001; 9 studies; 2891 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) and reduced bone pain (in 6 out of 11 studies; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate. Treatment with bisphosphonates did not appear to affect overall survival (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; P = 0.85; 7 studies; 1935 women; moderate-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity). Quality-of-life scores were slightly better with bisphosphonates than placebo at comparable time points (in three out of five studies; moderate-quality evidence) however scores decreased during the course of the studies. Denosumab reduced the risk of developing a SRE compared with bisphosphonates by 22% (RR 0.78, 0.72 to 0.85; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2345 women). One study reported data on overall survival and observed no difference in survival between denosumab and bisphosphonate.\nReported toxicities across all settings were generally mild. Osteonecrosis of the jaw was rare, occurring less than 0.5% in the adjuvant setting (high-quality evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nFor women with EBC, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of bone metastases and provide an overall survival benefit compared to placebo or no bisphosphonates. There is preliminary evidence suggestive that bisphosphonates provide an overall survival and disease-free survival benefit in postmenopausal women only when compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate. This was not a planned subgroup for these early trials, and we await the completion of new large clinical trials assessing benefit for postmenopausal women. For women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of developing SREs, delay the median time to an SRE, and appear to reduce bone pain compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Overall, most of the evidence was moderate to high-quality. This means that we are fairly confident in the findings."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8366
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic kidney disease (CKD) is an independent risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF), which is more prevalent among CKD patients than the general population. AF causes stroke or systemic embolism, leading to increased mortality. The conventional antithrombotic prophylaxis agent warfarin is often prescribed for the prevention of stroke, but risk of bleeding necessitates regular therapeutic monitoring. Recently developed direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) are expected to be useful as alternatives to warfarin.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of DOAC including apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban versus warfarin among AF patients with CKD.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register (up to 1 August 2017) through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which directly compared the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (direct thrombin inhibitors or factor Xa inhibitors) with dose-adjusted warfarin for preventing stroke and systemic embolic events in non-valvular AF patients with CKD, defined as creatinine clearance (CrCl) or eGFR between 15 and 60 mL/min (CKD stage G3 and G4).\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected studies, assessed quality, and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the association between anticoagulant therapy and all strokes and systemic embolic events as the primary efficacy outcome and major bleeding events as the primary safety outcome. Confidence in the evidence was assessing using GRADE.\nMain results\nOur review included 12,545 AF participants with CKD from five studies. All participants were randomised to either DOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) or dose-adjusted warfarin. Four studies used a central, interactive, automated response system for allocation concealment while the other did not specify concealment methods. Four studies were blinded while the other was partially open-label. However, given that all studies involved blinded evaluation of outcome events, we considered the risk of bias to be low. We were unable to create funnel plots due to the small number of studies, thwarting assessment of publication bias. Study duration ranged from 1.8 to 2.8 years. The large majority of participants included in this study were CKD stage G3 (12,155), and a small number were stage G4 (390). Of 12,545 participants from five studies, a total of 321 cases (2.56%) of the primary efficacy outcome occurred per year. Further, of 12,521 participants from five studies, a total of 617 cases (4.93%) of the primary safety outcome occurred per year. DOAC appeared to probably reduce the incidence of stroke and systemic embolism events (5 studies, 12,545 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.00; moderate certainty evidence) and to slightly reduce the incidence of major bleeding events (5 studies, 12,521 participants: RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.04; low certainty evidence) in comparison with warfarin.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur findings indicate that DOAC are as likely as warfarin to prevent all strokes and systemic embolic events without increasing risk of major bleeding events among AF patients with kidney impairment. These findings should encourage physicians to prescribe DOAC in AF patients with CKD without fear of bleeding. The major limitation is that the results of this study chiefly reflect CKD stage G3. Application of the results to CKD stage G4 patients requires additional investigation. Furthermore, we could not assess CKD stage G5 patients. Future reviews should assess participants at more advanced CKD stages. Additionally, we could not conduct detailed analyses of subgroups and sensitivity analyses due to lack of data.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we do?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found five studies that compared the effects of DOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) and dose-adjusted warfarin. The 12,545 participants in these five studies had non-valvular AF and moderate kidney impairment. These studies presented data on all composite outcomes of stroke and systematic embolic events as the primary efficacy outcome, with major bleeding events as the primary safety outcome. The median follow-up period ranged from 1.8 to 2.8 years. The evidence is accurate as of August 2017."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8368
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nDifferent forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.\nObjectives\nTo assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules.\nData collection and analysis\nWe used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.\nWe synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\nMain results\nWe included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses.\nOverall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome.\nWe identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.\nThis abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence).\nConfirmed symptomatic COVID-19\nHigh-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants).\nModerate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants).\nThere is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants).\nSevere or critical COVID-19\nHigh-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants).\nModerate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants).\nTwo trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled.\nSerious adverse events (SAEs)\nmRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants.\nEvidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants).\nFor the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review.\nAuthors' conclusions\nCompared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com).\nImplications for practice\nDue to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern.\nImplications for research\nFuture research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.\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": "Most studies assessed the vaccine for a short time after injection, and it is unclear if and how vaccine protection wanes over time. Due to the exclusion criteria of COVID-19 vaccine trials, results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, people with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or people with weakened immune systems. More research is needed comparing vaccines and vaccine schedules, and effectiveness and safety in specific populations and outcomes (e.g. preventing long COVID-19). Further, most studies were conducted before the emergence of variants of concerns."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8369
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nThe Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) is a widely acknowledged prognostic model to estimate preoperatively the probability of developing in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. However, the RCRI does not always make accurate predictions, so various studies have investigated whether biomarkers added to or compared with the RCRI could improve this.\nObjectives\nPrimary: To investigate the added predictive value of biomarkers to the RCRI to preoperatively predict in-hospital MACE and other adverse outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.\nSecondary: To investigate the prognostic value of biomarkers compared to the RCRI to preoperatively predict in-hospital MACE and other adverse outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.\nTertiary: To investigate the prognostic value of other prediction models compared to the RCRI to preoperatively predict in-hospital MACE and other adverse outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE and Embase from 1 January 1999 (the year that the RCRI was published) until 25 June 2020. We also searched ISI Web of Science and SCOPUS for articles referring to the original RCRI development study in that period.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies among adults who underwent noncardiac surgery, reporting on (external) validation of the RCRI and:\n- the addition of biomarker(s) to the RCRI; or\n- the comparison of the predictive accuracy of biomarker(s) to the RCRI; or\n- the comparison of the predictive accuracy of the RCRI to other models.\nBesides MACE, all other adverse outcomes were considered for inclusion.\nData collection and analysis\nWe developed a data extraction form based on the CHARMS checklist. Independent pairs of authors screened references, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability according to PROBAST. For biomarkers and prediction models that were added or compared to the RCRI in ≥ 3 different articles, we described study characteristics and findings in further detail. We did not apply GRADE as no guidance is available for prognostic model reviews.\nMain results\nWe screened 3960 records and included 107 articles.\nOver all objectives we rated risk of bias as high in ≥ 1 domain in 90% of included studies, particularly in the analysis domain. Statistical pooling or meta-analysis of reported results was impossible due to heterogeneity in various aspects: outcomes used, scale by which the biomarker was added/compared to the RCRI, prediction horizons and studied populations.\nAdded predictive value of biomarkers to the RCRI\nFifty-one studies reported on the added value of biomarkers to the RCRI. Sixty-nine different predictors were identified derived from blood (29%), imaging (33%) or other sources (38%). Addition of NT-proBNP, troponin or their combination improved the RCRI for predicting MACE (median delta c-statistics: 0.08, 0.14 and 0.12 for NT-proBNP, troponin and their combination, respectively). The median total net reclassification index (NRI) was 0.16 and 0.74 after addition of troponin and NT-proBNP to the RCRI, respectively. Calibration was not reported. To predict myocardial infarction, the median delta c-statistic when NT-proBNP was added to the RCRI was 0.09, and 0.06 for prediction of all-cause mortality and MACE combined. For BNP and copeptin, data were not sufficient to provide results on their added predictive performance, for any of the outcomes.\nComparison of the predictive value of biomarkers to the RCRI\nFifty-one studies assessed the predictive performance of biomarkers alone compared to the RCRI. We identified 60 unique predictors derived from blood (38%), imaging (30%) or other sources, such as the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (32%). Predictions were similar between the ASA classification and the RCRI for all studied outcomes. In studies different from those identified in objective 1, the median delta c-statistic was 0.15 and 0.12 in favour of BNP and NT-proBNP alone, respectively, when compared to the RCRI, for the prediction of MACE. For C-reactive protein, the predictive performance was similar to the RCRI. For other biomarkers and outcomes, data were insufficient to provide summary results. One study reported on calibration and none on reclassification.\nComparison of the predictive value of other prognostic models to the RCRI\nFifty-two articles compared the predictive ability of the RCRI to other prognostic models. Of these, 42% developed a new prediction model, 22% updated the RCRI, or another prediction model, and 37% validated an existing prediction model. None of the other prediction models showed better performance in predicting MACE than the RCRI. To predict myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest, ACS-NSQIP-MICA had a higher median delta c-statistic of 0.11 compared to the RCRI. To predict all-cause mortality, the median delta c-statistic was 0.15 higher in favour of ACS-NSQIP-SRS compared to the RCRI. Predictive performance was not better for CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, R2CHADS2, Goldman index, Detsky index or VSG-CRI compared to the RCRI for any of the outcomes. Calibration and reclassification were reported in only one and three studies, respectively.\nAuthors' conclusions\nStudies included in this review suggest that the predictive performance of the RCRI in predicting MACE is improved when NT-proBNP, troponin or their combination are added. Other studies indicate that BNP and NT-proBNP, when used in isolation, may even have a higher discriminative performance than the RCRI. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between the predictive accuracy of the RCRI and other prediction models in predicting MACE. However, ACS-NSQIP-MICA and ACS-NSQIP-SRS outperformed the RCRI in predicting myocardial infarction and cardiac arrest combined, and all-cause mortality, respectively. Nevertheless, the results cannot be interpreted as conclusive due to high risks of bias in a majority of papers, and pooling was impossible due to heterogeneity in outcomes, prediction horizons, biomarkers and studied populations.\nFuture research on the added prognostic value of biomarkers to existing prediction models should focus on biomarkers with good predictive accuracy in other settings (e.g. diagnosis of myocardial infarction) and identification of biomarkers from omics data. They should be compared to novel biomarkers with so far insufficient evidence compared to established ones, including NT-proBNP or troponins. Adherence to recent guidance for prediction model studies (e.g. TRIPOD; PROBAST) and use of standardised outcome definitions in primary studies is highly recommended to facilitate systematic review and meta-analyses in the future.\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 identified 69 different predictors that were added to the RCRI tool to improve predictions of these heart-related complications. The evidence is current to 25 June 2020. Predictions seem to improve with the addition of some biomarkers derived from blood. These are troponin (which measures muscular damage of the heart), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and (NT-pro)brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (which both measure severity of heart failure).\nIn addition, there were 60 biomarkers that were studied to compare their predictions to the RCRI. Other studies included in this review suggest that BNP and NT-proBNP alone may predict heart-related complications even better than the RCRI. Sixty-five prediction tools other than the RCRI tried to improve its predictions. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement (ACS-NSQIP) and ACS-NSQIP-MICA (myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest) surgical risk score tools could make better predictions than the RCRI, but this was only true for certain outcomes, and not for heart-related complications. However, for all of these research questions, we are not confident in the results due to large variation in the research methods applied and signs of less accurate research approaches having been used."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8370
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNon-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common lung cancer, accounting for approximately 80% to 85% of all cases. For people with localised NSCLC (stages I to III), it has been speculated that immunotherapy may be helpful for reducing postoperative recurrence rates, or improving the clinical outcomes of current treatment for unresectable tumours. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017 and it includes two new randomised controlled trials (RCTs).\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of immunotherapy (excluding checkpoint inhibitors) among people with localised NSCLC of stages I to III who received curative intent of radiotherapy or surgery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the following databases (from inception to 19 May 2021): CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and five trial registers. We also searched conference proceedings and reference lists of included trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included RCTs conducted in adults (≥ 18 years) diagnosed with NSCLC stage I to III after surgical resection, and those with unresectable locally advanced stage III NSCLC receiving radiotherapy with curative intent. We included participants who underwent primary surgical treatment, postoperative radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy if the same strategy was provided for both intervention and control groups.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected eligible trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We used survival analysis to pool time-to-event data, using hazard ratios (HRs). We used risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Due to clinical heterogeneity (immunotherapeutic agents with different underlying mechanisms), we combined data by applying random-effects models.\nMain results\nWe included 11 RCTs involving 5128 participants (this included 2 new trials with 188 participants since the last search dated 20 January 2017). Participants who underwent surgical resection or received curative radiotherapy were randomised to either an immunotherapy group or a control group. The immunological interventions were active immunotherapy Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) adoptive cell transfer (i.e. transfer factor (TF), tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL), dendritic cell/cytokine-induced killer (DC/CIK), antigen-specific cancer vaccines (melanoma-associated antigen 3 (MAGE-A3) and L-BLP25), and targeted natural killer (NK) cells. Seven trials were at high risk of bias for at least one of the risk of bias domains. Three trials were at low risk of bias across all domains and one small trial was at unclear risk of bias as it provided insufficient information. We included data from nine of the 11 trials in the meta-analyses involving 4863 participants.\nThere was no evidence of a difference between the immunotherapy agents and the controls on any of the following outcomes: overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; P = 0.27; 4 trials, 3848 participants; high-quality evidence), progression-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.03; P = 0.19; moderate-quality evidence), adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; P = 0.11; 4 trials, 4126 evaluated participants; low-quality evidence), and severe adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.40; 6 trials, 4546 evaluated participants; low-quality evidence).\nSurvival rates at different time points showed no evidence of a difference between immunotherapy agents and the controls. Survival rate at 1-year follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; I2 = 57%; 7 trials, 4420 participants; low-quality evidence), 2-year follow-up (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; 7 trials, 4420 participants; moderate-quality evidence), 3-year follow-up (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.09; 7 trials, 4420 participants; I2 = 22%; moderate-quality evidence) and at 5-year follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.12; I2 = 0%; 7 trials, 4389 participants; moderate-quality evidence).\nOnly one trial reported overall response rates. Two trials provided health-related quality of life results with contradicting results.\nAuthors' conclusions\nBased on this updated review, the current literature does not provide evidence that suggests a survival benefit from adding immunotherapy (excluding checkpoint inhibitors) to conventional curative surgery or radiotherapy, for people with localised NSCLC (stages I to III). Several ongoing trials with immune checkpoints inhibitors (PD-1/PD-L1) might bring new insights into the role of immunotherapy for people with stages I to III NSCLC.\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 four computerised databases and five trial registers to 19 May 2021. We looked for all trials that randomly allocated participants to one treatment or another (randomised controlled trials, RCTs), and included adults (aged 18 years or older) with early NSCLC (stages I to III), confirmed by laboratory testing of a sample of the tumour. We found 11 RCTs, which included over 5000 participants who had received surgery or curative radiotherapy, and were randomly allocated to receive either immunotherapy or no further treatment."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8371
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nNeovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of legal blindness in elderly populations of industrialised countries. Bevacizumab (Avastin®) and ranibizumab (Lucentis®) are targeted biological drugs (a monoclonal antibody) that inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor, an angiogenic cytokine that promotes vascular leakage and growth, thereby preventing its pathological angiogenesis. Ranibizumab is approved for intravitreal use to treat neovascular AMD, while bevacizumab is approved for intravenous use as a cancer therapy. However, due to the biological similarity of the two drugs, bevacizumab is widely used off-label to treat neovascular AMD.\nObjectives\nTo assess the systemic safety of intravitreal bevacizumab (brand name Avastin®; Genentech/Roche) compared with intravitreal ranibizumab (brand name Lucentis®; Novartis/Genentech) in people with neovascular AMD. Primary outcomes were death and All serious systemic adverse events (All SSAEs), the latter as a composite outcome in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice. Secondary outcomes examined specific SSAEs: fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarctions, strokes, arteriothrombotic events, serious infections, and events grouped in some Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities System Organ Classes (MedDRA SOC). We assessed the safety at the longest available follow-up to a maximum of two years.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and other online databases up to 27 March 2014. We also searched abstracts and clinical study presentations at meetings, trial registries, and contacted authors of included studies when we had questions.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) directly comparing intravitreal bevacizumab (1.25 mg) and ranibizumab (0.5 mg) in people with neovascular AMD, regardless of publication status, drug dose, treatment regimen, or follow-up length, and whether the SSAEs of interest were reported in the trial report.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors independently selected studies and assessed the risk of bias for each study. Three authors independently extracted data.\nWe conducted random-effects meta-analyses for the primary and secondary outcomes. We planned a pre-specified analysis to explore deaths and All SSAEs at the one-year follow-up.\nMain results\nWe included data from nine studies (3665 participants), including six published (2745 participants) and three unpublished (920 participants) RCTs, none supported by industry. Three studies excluded participants at high cardiovascular risk, increasing clinical heterogeneity among studies. The studies were well designed, and we did not downgrade the quality of the evidence for any of the outcomes due to risk of bias. Although the estimated effects of bevacizumab and ranibizumab on our outcomes were similar, we downgraded the quality of the evidence due to imprecision.\nAt the maximum follow-up (one or two years), the estimated risk ratio (RR) of death with bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab was 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.57, P value = 0.59; eight studies, 3338 participants; moderate quality evidence). Based on the event rates in the studies, this gives a risk of death with ranibizumab of 3.4% and with bevacizumab of 3.7% (95% CI 2.7% to 5.3%).\nFor All SSAEs, the estimated RR was 1.08 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.31, P value = 0.41; nine studies, 3665 participants; low quality evidence). Based on the event rates in the studies, this gives a risk of SSAEs of 22.2% with ranibizumab and with bevacizumab of 24% (95% CI 20% to 29.1%).\nFor the secondary outcomes, we could not detect any difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab, with the exception of gastrointestinal disorders MedDRA SOC where there was a higher risk with bevacizumab (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.04 to 3.19, P value = 0.04; six studies, 3190 participants).\nPre-specified analyses of deaths and All SSAEs at one-year follow-up did not substantially alter the findings of our review.\nFixed-effect analysis for deaths did not substantially alter the findings of our review, but fixed-effect analysis of All SSAEs showed an increased risk for bevacizumab (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.26, P value = 0.04; nine studies, 3665 participants): the meta-analysis was dominated by a single study (weight = 46.9%).\nThe available evidence was sensitive to the exclusion of CATT or unpublished results. For All SSAEs, the exclusion of CATT moved the overall estimate towards no difference (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.25, P value = 0.92), while the exclusion of LUCAS yielded a larger RR, with more SSAEs in the bevacizumab group, largely driven by CATT (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.34, P value = 0.004). The exclusion of all unpublished studies produced a RR of 1.12 for death (95% CI 0.78 to 1.62, P value = 0.53) and a RR of 1.21 for SSAEs (95% CI 1.06 to 1.37, P value = 0.004), indicating a higher risk of SSAEs in those assigned to bevacizumab than ranibizumab.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis systematic review of non-industry sponsored RCTs could not determine a difference between intravitreal bevacizumab and ranibizumab for deaths, All SSAEs, or specific subsets of SSAEs in the first two years of treatment, with the exception of gastrointestinal disorders. The current evidence is imprecise and might vary across levels of patient risks, but overall suggests that if a difference exists, it is likely to be small. Health policies for the utilisation of ranibizumab instead of bevacizumab as a routine intervention for neovascular AMD for reasons of systemic safety are not sustained by evidence. The main results and quality of evidence should be verified once all trials are fully published.\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 nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs), none supported by industry, with 3665 participants directly comparing bevacizumab with ranibizumab. Six RCTs were completed and published, two RCTs were completed, but unpublished, and one was still in progress. We were able to include safety information from all trials, accessing both published and unpublished data.\nDrugs were administered for up to two years according to continuous or discontinuous treatment. In the first, drugs were regularly administered, irrespective of the remission or progression of the disease; the latter involved 'as needed' (pro re nata, PRN) or 'treat-and-extend' regimens in which the drug was injected less frequently as long as there was no recurrence of neovascular manifestations. Follow-up for adverse events occurred at regular intervals up to one or two years, irrespective of continuous or discontinuous treatment.\nAll studies used the approved dosage of ranibizumab (0.5 mg) according to the 'Summary of Product Characteristics', and the dosage of bevacizumab most recommended by ophthalmologists for intravitreal injection (1.25 mg).\nThree studies excluded patients at high cardiovascular risk. However, four RCTs considered patients at different cardiovascular risks, representing a wide spectrum of risks and routine practice in hospital settings."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8372
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the most effective treatment for children with persistent asthma. Although treatment with ICS is generally considered to be safe in children, the potential adverse effects of these drugs on growth remains a matter of concern for parents and physicians.\nObjectives\nTo assess the impact of different inhaled corticosteroid drugs and delivery devices on the linear growth of children with persistent asthma.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO. We handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' clinical trial databases, or contacted the manufacturer, to search for potential relevant unpublished studies. The literature search was initially conducted in September 2014, and updated in November 2015, September 2018, and April 2019.\nSelection criteria\nWe selected parallel-group randomized controlled trials of at least three months' duration. To be included, trials had to compare linear growth between different inhaled corticosteroid molecules at equivalent doses, delivered by the same type of device, or between different devices used to deliver the same inhaled corticosteroid molecule at the same dose, in children up to 18 years of age with persistent asthma.\nData collection and analysis\nAt least two review authors independently selected studies and assessed risk of bias in included studies. The data were extracted by one author and checked by another. The primary outcome was linear growth velocity. We conducted meta-analyses using Review Manager 5.3 software. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs ) as the metrics for treatment effects, and the random-effects model for meta-analyses. We did not perform planned subgroup analyses due to there being too few included trials.\nMain results\nWe included six randomized trials involving 1199 children aged from 4 to 12 years (per-protocol population: 1008), with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Two trials were from single hospitals, and the remaining four trials were multicentre studies. The duration of trials varied from six to 20 months.\nOne trial with 23 participants compared fluticasone with beclomethasone, and showed that fluticasone given at an equivalent dose was associated with a significant greater linear growth velocity (MD 0.81 cm/year, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.16, low certainty evidence). Three trials compared fluticasone with budesonide. Fluticasone given at an equivalent dose had a less suppressive effect than budesonide on growth, as measured by change in height over a period from 20 weeks to 12 months (MD 0.97 cm, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.32; 2 trials, 359 participants; moderate certainty evidence). However, we observed no significant difference in linear growth velocity between fluticasone and budesonide at equivalent doses (MD 0.39 cm/year, 95% CI -0.94 to 1.73; 2 trials, 236 participants; very low certainty evidence).\nTwo trials compared inhalation devices. One trial with 212 participants revealed a comparable linear growth velocity between beclomethasone administered via hydrofluoroalkane-metered dose inhaler (HFA-MDI) and beclomethasone administered via chlorofluorocarbon-metered dose inhaler (CFC-MDI) at an equivalent dose (MD -0.44 cm/year, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.12; low certainty evidence). Another trial with 229 participants showed a small but statistically significant greater increase in height over a period of six months in favour of budesonide via Easyhaler, compared to budesonide given at the same dose via Turbuhaler (MD 0.37 cm, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.62; low certainty evidence).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review suggests that the drug molecule and delivery device may impact the effect size of ICS on growth in children with persistent asthma. Fluticasone at an equivalent dose seems to inhibit growth less than beclomethasone and budesonide. Easyhaler is likely to have less adverse effect on growth than Turbuhaler when used for delivery of budesonide. However, the evidence from this systematic review of head-to-head trials is not certain enough to inform the selection of inhaled corticosteroid or inhalation device for the treatment of children with persistent asthma. Further studies are needed, and pragmatic trials and real-life observational studies seem more attractive and feasible.\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": "Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the most effective treatment for children with persistent asthma. Persistent asthma is a more severe asthma that requires daily use of medications for controlling symptoms. Although treatment with ICS is generally considered safe in children, daily use of these drugs over a long period of time may cause reduction of growth. The effect on growth may depend on type of steroid and delivery device."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8373
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nSelective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) might theoretically reduce post-stroke disability by direct effects on the brain. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2012 and last updated in 2019.\nObjectives\nTo determine if SSRIs are more effective than placebo or usual care at improving outcomes in people less than 12 months post-stroke, and to determine whether treatment with SSRIs is associated with adverse effects.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 7 January 2021), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 7 January 2021), MEDLINE (1946 to 7 January 2021), Embase (1974 to 7 January 2021), CINAHL (1982 to 7 January 2021), PsycINFO (1985 to 7 January 2021), and AMED (1985 to 7 January 2021). PsycBITE had previously been searched (16 July 2018). We searched clinical trials registers.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting stroke survivors within the first year. The intervention was any SSRI, at any dose, for any period, and for any indication. The comparator was usual care or placebo. Studies reporting at least one of our primary (disability score or independence) or secondary outcomes (impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, fatigue, cognition, healthcare cost, death, adverse events and leaving the study early) were included in the meta-analysis. The primary analysis included studies at low risk of bias.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data on demographics, stroke type and, our pre-specified outcomes, and bias sources. Two review authors independently extracted data. We used mean difference (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed bias risks and applied GRADE criteria.\nMain results\nWe identified 76 eligible studies (13,029 participants); 75 provided data at end of treatment, and of these two provided data at follow-up. Thirty-eight required participants to have depression to enter. The duration, drug, and dose varied. Six studies were at low risk of bias across all domains; all six studies did not need participants to have depression to enter, and all used fluoxetine. Of these six studies, there was little to no difference in disability between groups SMD -0.0; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 5 studies, 5436 participants, high-quality evidence) or in independence (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 5 studies, 5926 participants; high-quality evidence) at the end of treatment.\nIn the studies at low risk of bias across all domains, SSRIs slightly reduced the average depression score (SMD 0.14 lower, 95% CI 0.19 lower to 0.08 lower; 4 studies; 5356 participants, high-quality evidence) and there was a slight reduction in the proportion with depression (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86; 3 studies, 5907 participants, high-quality evidence).\nCognition was slightly better in the control group (MD -1.22, 95% CI -2.37 to -0.07; 4 studies, 5373 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nOnly one study (n = 30) reported neurological deficit score (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -1.12 to 0.33; low-quality evidence).\nSSRIs resulted in little to no difference in motor deficit (SMD 0.03, -0.02 to 0.08; 6 studies, 5518 participants, moderate-quality evidence).\nSSRIs slightly increased the proportion leaving the study early (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.40; 6 studies, 6090 participants, high-quality evidence).\nSSRIs slightly increased the outcome of a seizure (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.98; 6 studies, 6080 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and a bone fracture (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.41; 6 studies, 6080 participants, high-quality evidence).\nOne study at low risk of bias across all domains reported gastrointestinal side effects (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.33, to 8.83; 1 study, 30 participants).\nThere was no difference in the total number of deaths between SSRI and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.24; 6 studies, 6090 participants, moderate quality evidence).\nSSRIs probably result in little to no difference in fatigue (MD -0.06; 95% CI -1.24 to 1.11; 4 studies, 5524 participants, moderate-quality of evidence), nor in quality of life (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, 3 studies, 5482 participants, high-quality evidence).\nWhen all studies, irrespective of risk of bias, were included, SSRIs reduced disability scores but not the proportion independent.\nThere was insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis of outcomes at end of follow-up.\nSeveral small ongoing studies are unlikely to alter conclusions.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is high-quality evidence that SSRIs do not make a difference to disability or independence after stroke compared to placebo or usual care, reduced the risk of future depression, increased bone fractures and probably increased seizure risk.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Key results\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "When we combined data from these six studies at low risk of bias, SSRIs did not reduce disability or dependency. SSRIs reduced the risk of future depression by about a quarter, but led to a slight increase in the risk of seizures and also increased the risk of bone fractures. The evidence is current until January 2021."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8374
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nChronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) is very common; it is defined as pain without a recognizable etiology that lasts for more than three months. Some clinical practice guidelines suggest that acupuncture can offer an effective alternative therapy. This review is a split from an earlier Cochrane review and it focuses on chronic LBP.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of acupuncture compared to sham intervention, no treatment, or usual care for chronic nonspecific LBP.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, two Chinese databases, and two trial registers to 29 August 2019 without restrictions on language or publication status. We also screened reference lists and LBP guidelines to identify potentially relevant studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for chronic nonspecific LBP in adults. We excluded RCTs that investigated LBP with a specific etiology. We included trials comparing acupuncture with sham intervention, no treatment, and usual care. The primary outcomes were pain, back-specific functional status, and quality of life; the secondary outcomes were pain-related disability, global assessment, or adverse events.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. We meta-analyzed data that were clinically homogeneous using a random-effects model in Review Manager 5.3. Otherwise, we reported the data qualitatively. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.\nMain results\nWe included 33 studies (37 articles) with 8270 participants. The majority of studies were carried out in Europe, Asia, North and South America. Seven studies (5572 participants) conducted in Germany accounted for 67% of the participants. Sixteen trials compared acupuncture with sham intervention, usual care, or no treatment. Most studies had high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of the acupuncturist. A few studies were found to have high risk of detection, attrition, reporting or selection bias.\nWe found low-certainty evidence (seven trials, 1403 participants) that acupuncture may relieve pain in the immediate term (up to seven days) compared to sham intervention (mean difference (MD) -9.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.82 to -4.61, visual analogue scale (VAS) 0-100). The difference did not meet the clinically important threshold of 15 points or 30% relative change. Very low-certainty evidence from five trials (1481 participants) showed that acupuncture was not more effective than sham in improving back-specific function in the immediate term (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.06; corresponding to the Hannover Function Ability Questionnaire (HFAQ, 0 to 100, higher values better) change (MD 3.33 points; 95% CI -1.25 to 7.90)). Three trials (1068 participants) yielded low-certainty evidence that acupuncture seemed not to be more effective clinically in the short term for quality of life (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.45; corresponding to the physical 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12, 0-100, higher values better) change (MD 2.33 points; 95% CI 0.29 to 4.37)). The reasons for downgrading the certainty of the evidence to either low to very low were risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.\nWe found moderate-certainty evidence that acupuncture produced greater and clinically important pain relief (MD -20.32, 95% CI -24.50 to -16.14; four trials, 366 participants; (VAS, 0 to 100), and improved back function (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.34; five trials, 2960 participants; corresponding to the HFAQ change (MD 11.50 points; 95% CI 7.38 to 15.84)) in the immediate term compared to no treatment. The evidence was downgraded to moderate certainty due to risk of bias. No studies reported on quality of life in the short term or adverse events.\nLow-certainty evidence (five trials, 1054 participants) suggested that acupuncture may reduce pain (MD -10.26, 95% CI -17.11 to -3.40; not clinically important on 0 to 100 VAS), and improve back-specific function immediately after treatment (SMD: -0.47; 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.17; five trials, 1381 participants; corresponding to the HFAQ change (MD 9.78 points, 95% CI 3.54 to 16.02)) compared to usual care. Moderate-certainty evidence from one trial (731 participants) found that acupuncture was more effective in improving physical quality of life (MD 4.20, 95% CI 2.82 to 5.58) but not mental quality of life in the short term (MD 1.90, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.55). The certainty of evidence was downgraded to moderate to low because of risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision.\nLow-certainty evidence suggested a similar incidence of adverse events immediately after treatment in the acupuncture and sham intervention groups (four trials, 465 participants) (RR 0.68 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01), and the acupuncture and usual care groups (one trial, 74 participants) (RR 3.34, 95% CI 0.36 to 30.68). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision. No trial reported adverse events for acupuncture when compared to no treatment. The most commonly reported adverse events in the acupuncture groups were insertion point pain, bruising, hematoma, bleeding, worsening of LBP, and pain other than LBP (pain in leg and shoulder).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found that acupuncture may not play a more clinically meaningful role than sham in relieving pain immediately after treatment or in improving quality of life in the short term, and acupuncture possibly did not improve back function compared to sham in the immediate term. However, acupuncture was more effective than no treatment in improving pain and function in the immediate term. Trials with usual care as the control showed acupuncture may not reduce pain clinically, but the therapy may improve function immediately after sessions as well as physical but not mental quality of life in the short term. The evidence was downgraded to moderate to very low-certainty considering most of studies had high risk of bias, inconsistency, and small sample size introducing imprecision. The decision to use acupuncture to treat chronic low back pain might depend on the availability, cost and patient's preferences.\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": "Compared with sham, acupuncture may not be more effective in reducing pain immediately after treatment. Acupuncture perhaps did not appear to improve back-specific function immediately after treatment, or may not enhance quality of life in the short term.\nAcupuncture was better than no treatment for pain relief and functional improvement immediately after treatment.\nCompared with usual care, acupuncture did not appear to significantly clinically reduce pain, but seemed more effective in improving function immediately after treatment. Acupuncture did not improve quality of life in the short-term.\nThe incidence of adverse events may be similar between acupuncture and sham, and between acupuncture and usual care. Adverse effects related to acupuncture were considered minor or moderate."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8375
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nShort-acting insulin analogue use for people with diabetes is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes.\nSearch methods\nWe carried out the electronic searches through Ovid simultaneously searching the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R) (1946 to 14 April 2015), EMBASE (1988 to 2015, week 15), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; March 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the European (EU) Clinical Trials register (both March 2015).\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 24 weeks that compared short-acting insulin analogues with regular human insulins in the treatment of adults with type 1 diabetes who were not pregnant.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias, and resolved differences by consensus. We graded overall study quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument. We used random-effects models for the main analyses and presented the results as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes.\nMain results\nWe identified nine trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria including 2693 participants. The duration of interventions ranged from 24 to 52 weeks with a mean of about 37 weeks. The participants showed some diversity, mainly with regard to diabetes duration and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The majority of the trials were carried out in the 1990s and participants were recruited from Europe, North America, Africa and Asia. None of the trials was carried out in a blinded manner so that the risk of performance bias, especially for subjective outcomes such as hypoglycaemia, was present in all of the trials. Furthermore, several trials showed inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and results.\nThe mean difference (MD) in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was -0.15% (95% CI -0.2% to -0.1%; P value < 0.00001; 2608 participants; 9 trials; low quality evidence) in favour of insulin analogues. The comparison of the risk of severe hypoglycaemia between the two treatment groups showed an OR of 0.89 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.12; P value = 0.31; 2459 participants; 7 trials; very low quality evidence). For overall hypoglycaemia, also taking into account mild forms of hypoglycaemia, the data were generally of low quality, but also did not indicate substantial group differences. Regarding nocturnal severe hypoglycaemic episodes, two trials reported statistically significant effects in favour of the insulin analogue, insulin aspart. However, due to inconsistent reporting in publications and trial reports, the validity of the result remains questionable.\nWe also found no clear evidence for a substantial effect of insulin analogues on health-related quality of life. However, there were few results only based on subgroups of the trial populations. None of the trials reported substantial effects regarding weight gain or any other adverse events. No trial was designed to investigate possible long-term effects (such as all-cause mortality, diabetic complications), in particular in people with diabetes related complications.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOur analysis suggests only a minor benefit of short-acting insulin analogues on blood glucose control in people with type 1 diabetes. To make conclusions about the effect of short acting insulin analogues on long-term patient-relevant outcomes, long-term efficacy and safety data 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 found nine randomised controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) comparing the insulin analogues, insulin lispro and insulin aspart, to regular human insulin delivered to 2693 participants. The people in the included studies were monitored (called follow-up) for between 24 and 52 weeks.\nThis evidence is up-to-date as of 15 April 2015."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8376
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn late 2019, the first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were reported in Wuhan, China, followed by a worldwide spread. Numerous countries have implemented control measures related to international travel, including border closures, travel restrictions, screening at borders, and quarantine of travellers.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness of international travel-related control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic on infectious disease transmission and screening-related outcomes.\nSearch methods\nWe searched MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19-specific databases, including the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the WHO Global Database on COVID-19 Research to 13 November 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies assessing the effects of travel-related control measures affecting human travel across international borders during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the original review, we also considered evidence on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). In this version we decided to focus on COVID-19 evidence only. Primary outcome categories were (i) cases avoided, (ii) cases detected, and (iii) a shift in epidemic development. Secondary outcomes were other infectious disease transmission outcomes, healthcare utilisation, resource requirements and adverse effects if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and subsequently full texts. For studies included in the analysis, one review author extracted data and appraised the study. At least one additional review author checked for correctness of data. To assess the risk of bias and quality of included studies, we used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool for observational studies concerned with screening, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively. One review author assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE, and several review authors discussed these GRADE judgements.\nMain results\nOverall, we included 62 unique studies in the analysis; 49 were modelling studies and 13 were observational studies. Studies covered a variety of settings and levels of community transmission.\nMost studies compared travel-related control measures against a counterfactual scenario in which the measure was not implemented. However, some modelling studies described additional comparator scenarios, such as different levels of stringency of the measures (including relaxation of restrictions), or a combination of measures.\nConcerns with the quality of modelling studies related to potentially inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters, and an inadequate assessment of model uncertainty. Concerns with risk of bias in observational studies related to the selection of travellers and the reference test, and unclear reporting of certain methodological aspects.\nBelow we outline the results for each intervention category by illustrating the findings from selected outcomes.\nTravel restrictions reducing or stopping cross-border travel (31 modelling studies)\nThe studies assessed cases avoided and shift in epidemic development. We found very low-certainty evidence for a reduction in COVID-19 cases in the community (13 studies) and cases exported or imported (9 studies). Most studies reported positive effects, with effect sizes varying widely; only a few studies showed no effect.\nThere was very low-certainty evidence that cross-border travel controls can slow the spread of COVID-19. Most studies predicted positive effects, however, results from individual studies varied from a delay of less than one day to a delay of 85 days; very few studies predicted no effect of the measure.\nScreening at borders (13 modelling studies; 13 observational studies)\nScreening measures covered symptom/exposure-based screening or test-based screening (commonly specifying polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing), or both, before departure or upon or within a few days of arrival. Studies assessed cases avoided, shift in epidemic development and cases detected. Studies generally predicted or observed some benefit from screening at borders, however these varied widely.\nFor symptom/exposure-based screening, one modelling study reported that global implementation of screening measures would reduce the number of cases exported per day from another country by 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 72% to 95%) (moderate-certainty evidence). Four modelling studies predicted delays in epidemic development, although there was wide variation in the results between the studies (very low-certainty evidence). Four modelling studies predicted that the proportion of cases detected would range from 1% to 53% (very low-certainty evidence). Nine observational studies observed the detected proportion to range from 0% to 100% (very low-certainty evidence), although all but one study observed this proportion to be less than 54%.\nFor test-based screening, one modelling study provided very low-certainty evidence for the number of cases avoided. It reported that testing travellers reduced imported or exported cases as well as secondary cases. Five observational studies observed that the proportion of cases detected varied from 58% to 90% (very low-certainty evidence).\nQuarantine (12 modelling studies)\nThe studies assessed cases avoided, shift in epidemic development and cases detected. All studies suggested some benefit of quarantine, however the magnitude of the effect ranged from small to large across the different outcomes (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Three modelling studies predicted that the reduction in the number of cases in the community ranged from 450 to over 64,000 fewer cases (very low-certainty evidence). The variation in effect was possibly related to the duration of quarantine and compliance.\nQuarantine and screening at borders (7 modelling studies; 4 observational studies)\nThe studies assessed shift in epidemic development and cases detected. Most studies predicted positive effects for the combined measures with varying magnitudes (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Four observational studies observed that the proportion of cases detected for quarantine and screening at borders ranged from 68% to 92% (low-certainty evidence). The variation may depend on how the measures were combined, including the length of the quarantine period and days when the test was conducted in quarantine.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWith much of the evidence derived from modelling studies, notably for travel restrictions reducing or stopping cross-border travel and quarantine of travellers, there is a lack of 'real-world' evidence. The certainty of the evidence for most travel-related control measures and outcomes is very low and the true effects are likely to be substantially different from those reported here. Broadly, travel restrictions may limit the spread of disease across national borders. Symptom/exposure-based screening measures at borders on their own are likely not effective; PCR testing at borders as a screening measure likely detects more cases than symptom/exposure-based screening at borders, although if performed only upon arrival this will likely also miss a meaningful proportion of cases. Quarantine, based on a sufficiently long quarantine period and high compliance is likely to largely avoid further transmission from travellers. Combining quarantine with PCR testing at borders will likely improve effectiveness. Many studies suggest that effects depend on factors, such as levels of community transmission, travel volumes and duration, other public health measures in place, and the exact specification and timing of the measure. Future research should be better reported, employ a range of designs beyond modelling and assess potential benefits and harms of the travel-related control measures from a societal perspective.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What did we want to find out?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We wanted to find out how effective international travel-related control measures are in containing the COVID-19 pandemic."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8377
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nTrigeminal neuralgia was defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain as a sudden, usually unilateral, severe, brief, stabbing recurrent pain in the distribution of one or more branches of the fifth cranial nerve. Standard treatment is with anti-epileptic drugs. Non-antiepileptic drugs have been used in the management of trigeminal neuralgia since the 1970s. This is an update of a review first published in 2006 and previously updated in 2011.\nObjectives\nTo systematically review the efficacy and tolerability of non-antiepileptic drugs for trigeminal neuralgia.\nSearch methods\nOn 20 May 2013, for this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (2013, Issue 4), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2013), LILACS (January 1982 to May 2013) and the Chinese Biomedical Retrieval System (1978 to May 2013). We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included double-blind, randomised controlled trials in which the active drug was used either alone or in combination with other non-antiepileptic drugs for at least two weeks.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo authors decided which trials fitted the inclusion criteria and independently graded risk of bias. We assessed the quality of the evidence according to the GRADE criteria for this update.\nMain results\nIn this 2013 update, we updated the searches, but identified only two new ongoing studies. The review includes four trials involving 139 participants. The primary outcome measure in each was pain relief. Three trials compared one of the oral non-antiepileptic drugs tizanidine, tocainide or pimozide with carbamazepine. The quality of evidence for all outcomes for which data were available was low. In a trial of tizanidine involving 12 participants (one dropped out due to unrelated disease), one of five participants treated with tizanidine and four of six treated with carbamazepine improved (risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 1.89). Few side effects were noted with tizanidine. For pimozide, there was evidence of greater efficacy than carbamazepine at six weeks. Up to 83% of participants reported adverse effects but these did not lead to withdrawal; the report did not provide comparable data for carbamazepine. Limited data meant that we could not assess the effects of tocainide; however, data from non-randomised studies (not included in this review) indicate that serious haematological adverse events can occur. A trial involving 47 participants compared 0.5% proparacaine hydrochloride eyedrops with placebo but did not show any significant benefits, again according to low-quality evidence. The report did not mention adverse events. The proparacaine trial was at low risk of bias; the other trials were at unclear risk of bias overall.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is low-quality evidence that the effect of tizanidine is not significantly different than that of carbamazepine in treating trigeminal neuralgia. Pimozide is more effective than carbamazepine, although the evidence is of low quality and the data did not allow comparison of adverse event rates. There is also low-quality evidence that 0.5% proparacaine hydrochloride eye drops have no benefit over placebo. Limitations in the data for tocainide prevent any conclusions being drawn. There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to show significant benefit from non-antiepileptic drugs in trigeminal neuralgia. More research is 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": "After a wide search for studies, we identified four trials involving 139 participants in total that met our criteria for inclusion in the review. Three randomised controlled trials compared the three different non-antiepileptic drugs tizanidine, tocainide and pimozide with carbamazepine, which is the standard drug treatment. No new trials were identified for the update of this review in 2013."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8378
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRates of injury and death caused by car crashes with teenage drivers remain high in most high-income countries. In addition to injury and death, car use includes other non-traffic risks; these may be health-related, such as physical inactivity or respiratory disease caused by air pollution, or have global significance, such as the environmental impact of car use. Research demonstrates that reducing the amount of time driving reduces the risk of injury, and it is expected that it would also reduce other risks that are unrelated to traffic. Mobility management interventions aim to increase mobility awareness and encourage a shift from private car use to active (walking, cycling, skateboarding), and public (bus, tram, train), transportation. 'Soft' mobility management interventions include the application of strategies and policies to reduce travel demand and may be instigated locally or more widely, to target a specific or a non-specific population group; 'hard' mobility management interventions include changes to the built environment or transport infrastructure and are not the focus of this review.\nBetween the ages of 15 to 19 years, young people enter a development stage known as the 'transition teens' in which they are likely to make long-lasting lifestyle changes. It is possible that using this specific time point to introduce mobility management interventions may influence a person's long-term mobility behaviour.\nObjectives\nTo assess whether 'soft' mobility management interventions prevent, reduce, or delay car driving in teenagers aged 15 to 19 years, and to assess whether these mobility management interventions also reduce crashes caused by teenage drivers.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Social Policy and Practice on 16 August 2019. We searched clinical trials registers, relevant conference proceedings, and online media sources of transport organisations, and conducted backward- and forward-citation searching of relevant articles.\nSelection criteria\nWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled before-after studies (CBAs) evaluating mobility management interventions in teenagers aged 15 to 19 years. We included informational, educational, or behavioural interventions that aimed to prevent, reduce, or delay car driving in this age group, and we compared these interventions with no intervention or with standard practice. We excluded studies that evaluated graduated drivers licensing (GDL) programmes, separate components of GDL, or interventions that act in conjunction with, or as an extension of, GDL. Such programmes aim to increase driving experience and skills through stages of supervised and unsupervised exposure, but assume that all participants will drive; they do not attempt to encourage people to drive less in the long term or promote alternatives to driving. We also excluded studies which evaluated school-based safe-driving initiatives.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.\nMain results\nWe included one RCT with 178 participants and one CBA with 860 participants. The RCT allocated university students, with a mean age of 18 years, who had not yet acquired a driving licence, to one of four interventions that provided educational information about negative aspects of car use, or to a fifth group in which no information was given. Types of educational information about car use related to cost, risk, or stress, or all three types of educational information combined.\nIn the CBA, 860 school students, aged 17 to 18 years taking a driving theory course, had an additional interactive lesson about active transport (walking or cycling), and some were invited to join a relevant Facebook group with posts targeting awareness and habit.\nWe did not conduct meta-analyses because we had insufficient studies.\nWe could not be certain whether educational interventions versus no information affected people's decision to obtain a driving licence 18 months after receiving the intervention (risk ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.85; very low-certainty evidence). We noted that fewer participants who were given information obtained a driving licence (42.6%) compared to those who did not receive information (69%), but we had very little confidence in the effect estimate; the study had high or unclear risks of bias and the evidence was from one small study and was therefore imprecise.\nWe could not be certain whether interventions about active transport, given during a driving theory course, could influence behavioural predictors of car use. Study authors noted:\n- an increased intention to use active transport after obtaining a driving licence between postintervention and an eight-week follow-up in students who were given an active transport lesson and a Facebook invitation compared to those given only the active transport lesson; and\n- a decrease in intention between pre- and postintervention in those given an active transport lesson and Facebook invitation compared to those given the active transport lesson only.\nThere were high risks of bias in this CBA study design, a large amount of missing data (very few participants accepted the Facebook invitation), and data came from a single study only, so we judged the evidence to be of very low certainty.\nThese studies did not measure our primary outcome (driving frequency), or other secondary outcomes (driving distance, driving hours, use of alternative modes of transport, or car crashes).\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found only two small studies, and could not determine whether mobility management interventions were effective to prevent, reduce, or delay car driving in teenagers. The lack of evidence in this review raises two points. First, more foundational research is needed to discover how and why young people make decisions surrounding their personal transport, in order to find out what might encourage them to delay licensing and driving. Second, we need longitudinal studies with a robust study design – such as RCTs – and with large sample sizes that incorporate different socioeconomic groups in order to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of relevant interventions. Ideally, evaluations will include an assessment of how attitudes and beliefs evolve in teenagers during these transition years, and the potential effect of these on the design of a mobility management intervention for this age group.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Quality of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We found only two small studies investigating different types of mobility management, so could not compare their findings with other similar experiments to see if they produced the same results. Similarly, we could not be certain whether these programmes would be effective in real-world settings. Some of the methods in the RCT were not well reported, and we expected that students might share information they were given with other study participants, which might have affected the study findings.\nCBA study designs have higher risks of bias because participants are not randomised to groups, and, in this CBA, the characteristics of students varied between groups. There was also a very high number of participants who did not complete the questionnaires at each time point.\nConsequently, we judged the evidence from these studies to be of very-low quality."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8379
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAir travel might increase the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). It has been suggested that wearing compression stockings might reduce this risk. This is an update of the review first published in 2006.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of wearing compression stockings versus not wearing them for preventing DVT in people travelling on flights lasting at least four hours.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 April 2020. We also checked the bibliographies of relevant studies and reviews identified by the search to check for any additional trials.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised trials of compression stockings versus no stockings in passengers on flights lasting at least four hours. Trials in which passengers wore a stocking on one leg but not the other, or those comparing stockings and another intervention were also eligible.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We sought additional information from trialists where necessary.\nMain results\nOne new study that fulfilled the inclusion criteria was identified for this update. Twelve randomised trials (n = 2918) were included in this review: ten (n = 2833) compared wearing graduated compression stockings on both legs versus not wearing them; one trial (n = 50) compared wearing graduated compression tights versus not wearing them; and one trial (n = 35) compared wearing a graduated compression stocking on one leg for the outbound flight and on the other leg on the return flight. Eight trials included people judged to be at low or medium risk of developing DVT (n = 1598) and two included high-risk participants (n = 1273). All flights had a duration of more than five hours.\nFifty of 2637 participants with follow-up data available in the trials of wearing compression stockings on both legs had a symptomless DVT; three wore stockings, 47 did not (odds ratio (OR) 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.25, P < 0.001; high-certainty evidence). There were no symptomless DVTs in three trials. Sixteen of 1804 people developed superficial vein thrombosis, four wore stockings, 12 did not (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.13, P = 0.09; moderate-certainty evidence). No deaths, pulmonary emboli or symptomatic DVTs were reported. Wearing stockings had a significant impact in reducing oedema (mean difference (MD) −4.72, 95% CI −4.91 to −4.52; based on six trials; low-certainty evidence). A further three trials showed reduced oedema in the stockings group but could not be included in the meta-analysis as they used different methods to measure oedema. No significant adverse effects were reported.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is high-certainty evidence that airline passengers similar to those in this review can expect a substantial reduction in the incidence of symptomless DVT and low-certainty evidence that leg oedema is reduced if they wear compression stockings. The certainty of the evidence was limited by the way that oedema was measured. There is moderate-certainty evidence that superficial vein thrombosis may be reduced if passengers wear compression stockings. We cannot assess the effect of wearing stockings on death, pulmonary embolism or symptomatic DVT because no such events occurred in these trials. Randomised trials to assess these outcomes would need to include a very large number of people.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Reliability of the evidence\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "High-certainty evidence shows that airline passengers wearing compression stockings develop less symptomless DVT and low-certainty evidence shows that leg swelling is reduced when compared to not wearing compression stockings. Our certainty in the evidence was limited by the way that swelling was measured. There is moderate-certainty evidence that superficial vein thrombosis may be reduced in passengers who wear compression stockings. We cannot assess the effect of wearing stockings on death, pulmonary embolism or symptomatic DVT because no such events occurred in these trials. Randomised trials to assess these outcomes would need to include a very large number of people."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8380
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nA rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) is a separation of the neurosensory retina from the retinal pigment epithelium caused by a full-thickness break associated with vitreous traction. While pneumatic retinopexy (PR), scleral buckle (SB), and vitrectomy are all well-received surgical interventions for eyes with RRD, their relative effectiveness has remained controversial.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effectiveness and safety of PR versus SB or PR versus a combination treatment of SB and vitrectomy for people with RRD and to summarize any data on economic measures and quality of life.\nSearch methods\nWe searched CENTRAL; which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 3); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; and four other databases on 11 March 2021. We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.\nSelection criteria\nWe included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of PR versus SB (with or without vitrectomy) for eyes with RRD.\nData collection and analysis\nAfter screening for eligibility, two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. We followed systematic review standards as set by Cochrane.\nMain results\nIn this update, we identified and included one new randomized controlled trial. Together with two trials from the 2015 version of the review, we included three trials (276 eyes of 274 participants) comparing the effectiveness of PR versus SB. None compared PR versus a combined treatment of SB and vitrectomy.\nOf the three trials, one was a small study (published in 1996) with 20 participants (20 eyes) enrolled in Ireland and followed for a mean of 16 months; the second (published in 1989) included 196 participants (198 eyes) in the US followed for at least six months, and the third (published in 2021) was conducted in Italy and enrolled 58 participants (58 eyes) with a follow-up of 12 months. Overall, poor reporting quality resulted in unclear or high risks of bias.\nWe found low-certainty evidence that PR may achieve retinal reattachment slightly less often than SB (risk ratio [RR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 to 1.02; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 276 eyes). Eyes undergoing PR may also display a higher risk of recurrent retinal detachment (low-certainty evidence), but the RR estimates were very imprecise (RR 1.70, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.98; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 276 eyes).\nAll three studies described the final visual acuity (VA) after the two procedures. However, the results were reported using different metrics and could not be combined. One study (196 participants) reported the proportion of eyes with a final VA of 20/40 or greater and favored PR (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.65; low-certainty evidence), whereas in the 2021 study, both groups showed an improvement in final VA and there was no evidence of a difference between the two (mean difference [MD] −0.03, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.19; low-certainty evidence).\nNo study reported data on quality of life or economic measures.\nPostoperative safety outcomes generally favored PR versus SB (low/very low-certainty evidence); however, there was considerable uncertainty regarding the risk of any operative ocular adverse events (RR 0.55 CI 0.28 to 1.11; 276 eyes), glaucoma (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.46; 198 eyes), macular pucker (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.11; 256 eyes), proliferative vitreoretinopathy (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.96; 276 eyes), and persistent diplopia (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.09; 256 eyes). Eyes undergoing PR experienced fewer postoperative cataract developments (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.75; 153 eyes), choroidal detachments (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.57; 198 eyes), and myopic shift (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.10; 256 eyes).\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe current update confirms the findings of the previous review. PR may result in lower rates of reattachment and higher rates of recurrence than SB, but carries a lower burden of postoperative complications. The effects of these two procedures on other functional outcomes and quality of life remain uncertain. The available evidence remains insufficient and of low quality.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Study funding sources\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Studies were funded by the authors' institutions or unknown resources."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8381
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nCalcium channel blockers are the most commonly prescribed drugs for people with primary Raynaud's phenomenon. Primary Raynaud's phenomenon is a common condition characterised by an exaggerated vasospastic response to cold or emotion: classically the digits (fingers and toes) turn white, then blue, then red. This is an update of the review first published in 2014.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of different calcium channel blockers for primary Raynaud's phenomenon as determined by attack rates, severity scores, participant-preference scores and physiological measurements.\nSearch methods\nFor this update the Cochrane Vascular Trial Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched January 2016) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 12). In addition the TSC searched clinical trials databases.\nSelection criteria\nRandomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of oral calcium channel blockers for the treatment of primary Raynaud's phenomenon.\nData collection and analysis\nThree review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and their quality, and extracted the data. Data extraction included adverse events. We contacted trial authors for missing data.\nMain results\nWe included seven randomised trials with 296 participants. Four trials examined nifedipine and the remainder nicardipine. Comparisons were with placebo in six trials and with both dazoxiben and placebo in one trial (only the nifedipine versus placebo data were used within this review). Treatment with oral calcium channel blockers was minimally effective in primary Raynaud's phenomenon at decreasing the frequency of attacks (standardised mean difference of 0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.38, P = 0.003). This translates to 1.72 (95% CI 0.60 to 2.84) fewer attacks per week on calcium channel blockers compared to placebo. One trial provided details on duration of attacks reporting no statistically significant difference between the nicardipine and placebo groups (no P value reported). Only two trials provided any detail of statistical comparisons of (unvalidated) severity scores between treatment groups: one of these trials (60 participants) reported a mean severity score of 1.55 on placebo and 1.36 on nicardipine, difference 0.2 (95% CI of difference 0 to 0.4, no P value reported) and the other trial (three participants only with primary Raynaud's phenomenon) reported a median severity score of 2 on both nicardipine and placebo treatment (P > 0.999) suggesting little effect on severity. Participant-preference scores were included in four trials, but in only two were results specific to participants with primary Raynaud's phenomenon, and scoring systems differed between trials: scores differed between treatments in only one trial, in which 33% of participants on placebo and 73% on nifedipine reported improvement in symptoms (P < 0.001). Physiological measurements were included as outcome measures in five trials (different methodologies were used in each): none of these trials found any statistically significant between-treatment group differences. Treatment with calcium channel blockers appeared to be associated with a number of adverse reactions, including headaches, flushing and oedema (swelling). Overall, the trials were classed as being at low or unclear risk of bias; and the quality of the evidence presented was moderate for number of attacks, very low for duration of attacks, high for severity scores and low for patient preference scores.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThe randomised controlled trials included in this review provide moderate quality evidence that oral calcium channel blockers are minimally effective in the treatment of primary Raynaud's phenomenon as measured by the frequency of attacks and high-quality evidence that they have little effect on severity. We are unable to comment on duration of attacks or on patient preference due to the very low and low quality of evidence as a result of small sample sizes in the included studies and the variable data quality of outcome measures.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \".\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8382
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nAcute ischemic stroke (AIS) is the abrupt reduction of blood flow to a certain area of the brain which causes neurologic dysfunction. Different types of percutaneous arterial endovascular interventions have been developed, but as yet there is no consensus on the optimal therapy for people with AIS.\nObjectives\nTo compare the safety and efficacy of different types of percutaneous arterial endovascular interventions for treating people with AIS.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 4 of 12, 2022), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 13 May 2022), Embase (1947 to 15 May 2022), Science Citation Index Web of Science (1900 to 15 May 2022), Scopus (1960 to 15 May 2022), and China Biological Medicine Database (CBM; 1978 to 16 May 2022). We also searched the ClinicalTrials.gov trials register and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 16 May 2022.\nSelection criteria\nRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one percutaneous arterial endovascular intervention with another in treating adult patients who have a clinical diagnosis of AIS due to large vessel occlusion and confirmed by imaging evidence, including thrombo-aspiration, stent-retrieval thrombectomy, aspiration-retriever combined technique, and thrombus mechanical fragmentation.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently performed the literature searches, identified eligible trials, and extracted data. A third review author participated in discussions to reach consensus decisions when any disputes occurred. We assessed risk of bias and applied the GRADE approach to evaluate the quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was rate of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) of 0 to 2 at three months. Secondary outcomes included the rate of modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) of 2b to 3 postprocedure, all-cause mortality within three months, rate of intracranial hemorrhage on imaging at 24 hours, rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours, and rate of procedure-related adverse events within three months.\nMain results\nFour RCTs were eligible. The current meta-analysis included two trials with 651 participants comparing thrombo-aspiration with stent-retrieval thrombectomy. We judged the quality of evidence to be high in both trials according to Cochrane's risk of bias tool RoB 2.\nThere were no significant differences between thrombo-aspiration and stent-retrieval thrombectomy in rate of mRS of 0 to 2 at three months (risk ratio [RR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82 to 1.13; P = 0.68; 633 participants; 2 RCTs); rate of mTICI of 2b to 3 postprocedure (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; P = 0.77; 650 participants; 2 RCTs); all-cause mortality within three months (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.37; P = 0.95; 633 participants; 2 RCTs); rate of intracranial hemorrhage on imaging at 24 hours (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24; P = 0.73; 645 participants; 2 RCTs); rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage at 24 hours (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.68; P = 0.75; 645 participants; 2 RCTs); and rate of procedure-related adverse events within three months (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.41; P = 0.90; 651 participants; 2 RCTs).\nAnother two included studies reported no differences for the comparisons of combined therapy versus stent-retrieval thrombectomy or thrombo-aspiration. One RCT is ongoing.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThis review did not establish any difference in safety and effectiveness between the thrombo-aspiration approach and stent-retrieval thrombectomy for treating people with AIS. Furthermore, the combined group did not show any obvious advantage over either intervention applied alone.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Question\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "Which type of endovascular treatment is best in terms of safety and effectiveness for people with acute ischemic stroke (AIS)?"
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8383
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nBeta-blockers are commonly used in the treatment of hypertension. We do not know whether the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of beta-blockers varies across the day. This review focuses on the subclass of beta-blockers with partial agonist activity (BBPAA).\nObjectives\nTo assess the degree of variation in hourly BP lowering efficacy of BBPAA over a 24-hour period in adults with essential hypertension.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for relevant studies up to June 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register; CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 5; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; 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 sought to include all randomised and non-randomised trials that assessed the hourly effect of BBPAA by ambulatory monitoring, with a minimum follow-up of three weeks.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently selected the included trials and extracted the data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Outcomes included in the review were end-point hourly systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) and heart rate (HR), measured using a 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) device.\nMain results\nFourteen non-randomised baseline controlled trials of BBPAA met our inclusion criteria, but only seven studies, involving 121 participants, reported hourly ambulatory BP data that could be included in the meta-analysis. Beta-blockers studied included acebutalol, pindolol and bopindolol. We judged most studies at high or unclear risk of bias for selection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence to be very low for all outcomes.\nWe analysed and presented data by each hour post-dose. Very low-certainty evidence showed that hourly mean reduction in BP and HR visually showed an attenuation over time. Over the 24-hour period, the magnitude of SBP lowering at each hour ranged from -3.68 mmHg to -17.74 mmHg (7 studies, 121 participants), DBP lowering at each hour ranged from -2.27 mmHg to -9.34 mmHg (7 studies, 121 participants), and HR lowering at each hour ranged from -0.29 beats/min to -10.29 beats/min (4 studies, 71 participants). When comparing between three 8-hourly time intervals that correspond to day, evening, and night time hours, BBPAA was less effective at lowering BP and HR at night, than during the day and evening. However, because we judged that these outcomes were supported by very low-certainty evidence, further research is likely to have an important impact on the estimate of effect and may change the conclusion.\nAuthors' conclusions\nThere is insufficient evidence to draw general conclusions about the degree of variation in hourly BP-lowering efficacy of BBPAA over a 24-hour period, in adults with essential hypertension. Very low-certainty evidence showed that BBPAA acebutalol, pindolol, and bopindolol lowered BP more during the day and evening than at night. However, the number of studies and participants included in this review was very small, further limiting the certainty of the evidence. We need further and larger trials, with accurate recording of time of drug intake, and with reporting of standard deviation of BP and HR at each hour.\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 identified seven studies, involving 121 participants, that studied three of the six beta-blockers with partial agonist activity (acebutolol, pindolol, and bopindolol). We found that these beta-blockers lowered blood pressure and heart rate more during the day and evening than at night. Currently, we do not know the benefits and harms of this pattern of blood pressure lowering, such as its impact on reducing stroke and heart disease."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8384
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nRelapse (the re-emergence of depressive symptoms after some level of improvement but preceding recovery) and recurrence (onset of a new depressive episode after recovery) are common in depression, lead to worse outcomes and quality of life for patients and exert a high economic cost on society. Outcomes can be predicted by using multivariable prognostic models, which use information about several predictors to produce an individualised risk estimate. The ability to accurately predict relapse or recurrence while patients are well (in remission) would allow the identification of high-risk individuals and may improve overall treatment outcomes for patients by enabling more efficient allocation of interventions to prevent relapse and recurrence.\nObjectives\nTo summarise the predictive performance of prognostic models developed to predict the risk of relapse, recurrence, sustained remission or recovery in adults with major depressive disorder who meet criteria for remission or recovery.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane Library (current issue); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 onwards); Ovid Embase (1980 onwards); Ovid PsycINFO (1806 onwards); and Web of Science (1900 onwards) up to May 2020. We also searched sources of grey literature, screened the reference lists of included studies and performed a forward citation search. There were no restrictions applied to the searches by date, language or publication status .\nSelection criteria\nWe included development and external validation (testing model performance in data separate from the development data) studies of any multivariable prognostic models (including two or more predictors) to predict relapse, recurrence, sustained remission, or recovery in adults (aged 18 years and over) with remitted depression, in any clinical setting. We included all study designs and accepted all definitions of relapse, recurrence and other related outcomes. We did not specify a comparator prognostic model.\nData collection and analysis\nTwo review authors independently screened references; extracted data (using a template based on the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS)); and assessed risks of bias of included studies (using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST)). We referred any disagreements to a third independent review author. Where we found sufficient (10 or more) external validation studies of an individual model, we planned to perform a meta-analysis of its predictive performance, specifically with respect to its calibration (how well the predicted probabilities match the observed proportions of individuals that experience the outcome) and discrimination (the ability of the model to differentiate between those with and without the outcome). Recommendations could not be qualified using the GRADE system, as guidance is not yet available for prognostic model reviews.\nMain results\nWe identified 11 eligible prognostic model studies (10 unique prognostic models). Seven were model development studies; three were model development and external validation studies; and one was an external validation-only study. Multiple estimates of performance measures were not available for any of the models and, meta-analysis was therefore not possible. Ten out of the 11 included studies were assessed as being at high overall risk of bias. Common weaknesses included insufficient sample size, inappropriate handling of missing data and lack of information about discrimination and calibration. One paper (Klein 2018) was at low overall risk of bias and presented a prognostic model including the following predictors: number of previous depressive episodes, residual depressive symptoms and severity of the last depressive episode. The external predictive performance of this model was poor (C-statistic 0.59; calibration slope 0.56; confidence intervals not reported). None of the identified studies examined the clinical utility (net benefit) of the developed model.\nAuthors' conclusions\nOf the 10 prognostic models identified (across 11 studies), only four underwent external validation. Most of the studies (n = 10) were assessed as being at high overall risk of bias, and the one study that was at low risk of bias presented a model with poor predictive performance. There is a need for improved prognostic research in this clinical area, with future studies conforming to current best practice recommendations for prognostic model development/validation and reporting findings in line with the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"What was studied in the review?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "We collected and analysed the results of 11 relevant studies. We were interested in several things: how researchers had defined relapse and recurrence (for example, whether they had used clinical interviews or self-report questionnaires to diagnose depressive symptoms); what information was gathered to help make predictions; the techniques used by the researchers to help develop the tools; and how well the tools predicted. We were also interested in whether the tools were tested in a separate group of participants, which is essential to ensure that the model can predict accurately in patients in the real world.\nFinally, we assessed the studies to determine how confident we could be in the results, given the approaches taken by researchers (this is called 'risk of bias') and how relevant the studies were to our review (this is called 'applicability')."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8385
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nIn response to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the impact of COVID-19, national and subnational governments implemented a variety of measures in order to control the spread of the virus and the associated disease. While these measures were imposed with the intention of controlling the pandemic, they were also associated with severe psychosocial, societal, and economic implications on a societal level. One setting affected heavily by these measures is the school setting. By mid-April 2020, 192 countries had closed schools, affecting more than 90% of the world’s student population. In consideration of the adverse consequences of school closures, many countries around the world reopened their schools in the months after the initial closures. To safely reopen schools and keep them open, governments implemented a broad range of measures.\nThe evidence with regards to these measures, however, is heterogeneous, with a multitude of study designs, populations, settings, interventions and outcomes being assessed. To make sense of this heterogeneity, we conducted a rapid scoping review (8 October to 5 November 2020). This rapid scoping review is intended to serve as a precursor to a systematic review of effectiveness, which will inform guidelines issued by the World Health Organization (WHO). This review is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and was registered with the Open Science Framework.\nObjectives\nTo identify and comprehensively map the evidence assessing the impacts of measures implemented in the school setting to reopen schools, or keep schools open, or both, during the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic, with particular focus on the types of measures implemented in different school settings, the outcomes used to measure their impacts and the study types used to assess these.\nSearch methods\nWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the CDC COVID-19 Research Articles Downloadable Database for preprints, and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease on 8 October 2020.\nSelection criteria\nWe included studies that assessed the impact of measures implemented in the school setting. Eligible populations were populations at risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, or developing COVID-19 disease, or both, and included people both directly and indirectly impacted by interventions, including students, teachers, other school staff, and contacts of these groups, as well as the broader community. We considered all types of empirical studies, which quantitatively assessed impact including epidemiological studies, modelling studies, mixed-methods studies, and diagnostic studies that assessed the impact of relevant interventions beyond diagnostic test accuracy. Broad outcome categories of interest included infectious disease transmission-related outcomes, other harmful or beneficial health-related outcomes, and societal, economic, and ecological implications.\nData collection and analysis\nWe extracted data from included studies in a standardized manner, and mapped them to categories within our a priori logic model where possible. Where not possible, we inductively developed new categories. In line with standard expectations for scoping reviews, the review provides an overview of the existing evidence regardless of methodological quality or risk of bias, and was not designed to synthesize effectiveness data, assess risk of bias, or characterize strength of evidence (GRADE).\nMain results\nWe included 42 studies that assessed measures implemented in the school setting. The majority of studies used mathematical modelling designs (n = 31), while nine studies used observational designs, and two studies used experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Studies conducted in real-world contexts or using real data focused on the WHO European region (EUR; n = 20), the WHO region of the Americas (AMR; n = 13), the West Pacific region (WPR; n = 6), and the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR; n = 1). One study conducted a global assessment and one did not report on data from, or that were applicable to, a specific country.\nThree broad intervention categories emerged from the included studies: organizational measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (n = 36), structural/environmental measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (n = 11), and surveillance and response measures to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections (n = 19). Most studies assessed SARS-CoV-2 transmission-related outcomes (n = 29), while others assessed healthcare utilization (n = 8), other health outcomes (n = 3), and societal, economic, and ecological outcomes (n = 5). Studies assessed both harmful and beneficial outcomes across all outcome categories.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe identified a heterogeneous and complex evidence base of measures implemented in the school setting. This review is an important first step in understanding the available evidence and will inform the development of rapid reviews on this topic.\n\nGiven the provided abstract, please respond to the following query: \"Why is this question important?\". Use language that can be easily comprehended by individuals without domain knowledge:\n"
},
{
"role": "assistant",
"content": "To combat the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the impact of COVID-19, countries worldwide have taken a variety of public health measures. In many countries, shutting schools was one of the earliest responses. By mid-April 2020, 192 countries had closed schools, affecting more than 90% of the world’s student population. This severely disrupted school, family and work life, with likely negative impacts including:\n- a worsening of children’s and adolescents’ health and well-being;\n- increases in inequalities between children and adolescents from disadvantaged and more privileged backgrounds;\n- possible decreased parental income and job security;\n- possible loss of parental economic productivity.\nGiven the potential negative consequences of school closures, many countries have since reopened schools. To avoid disease transmission among students, between staff and students, and beyond, a range of school-based measures have been put in place. These include:\n- students and staff wearing face masks and regularly washing their hands;\n- adapting school activities (for example, not singing in music classes);\n- improving ventilation systems; and\n- screening suspected cases of infection.\nTo date, we know little about which school-based measures designed to contain COVID-19 have been evaluated, and how they have been evaluated. It is important to find this out, so that, in time, we can compare the effectiveness of different measures and inform future policy guidelines.\nWe set out to identify and map the evidence on school-based measures to contain COVID-19. This work is intended to form the basis of a future review about the effectiveness of these measures. This review will inform guidelines issued by the World Health Organization (WHO)."
}
] |
query-laysum
|
8386
|
[
{
"role": "user",
"content": "Abstract: Background\nInflammatory abdominal aortic aneurysm (IAAA) is a rare but potentially life-threatening condition characterised by marked thickening of the aortic wall, peri-aneurysmal and retroperitoneal fibrosis, and dense adhesions of adjacent abdominal organs. The pathogenesis of IAAA remains an enigma. The main aim of invasive or surgical therapy of AAAs is prevention or correction of aortic rupture. Prevention or treatment of AAA rupture by open or endovascular repair is proven by numerous studies published in the literature. Treatment of IAAA poses a different challenge to surgeons compared with traditional atherosclerotic AAA because of the potential for iatrogenic injury in open repair or, alternatively, potential increased inflammatory response to endoprosthesis implantation.\nObjectives\nTo assess the effects of elective endovascular versus open repair for inflammatory abdominal aortic aneurysms.\nSearch methods\nThe Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) (2015, Issue 3). The TSC searched trial databases for details of ongoing and unpublished studies.\nSelection criteria\nWe sought all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and controlled clinical trials comparing results of elective endovascular or open repair of IAAAs without language restriction.\nData collection and analysis\nBoth review authors independently assessed studies identified for potential inclusion in the review. We planned to conduct data collection and analysis in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions.\nMain results\nWe identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.\nAuthors' conclusions\nWe found no published RCTs, quasi RCTs or controlled clinical trials comparing open repair and elective endovascular repair for IAAA, assessing immediate (30-day), intermediate (up to one-year follow-up) and long-term (more than one-year follow-up) mortality or complications rates. High-quality studies evaluating the best treatment for inflammatory abdominal aneurysm repair are 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": "An aneurysm is a localised widening or enlargement of an artery that may ultimately lead to rupture (bursting) and may be fatal. The abdominal aorta is the artery most frequently involved in the enlargement process. In inflammatory abdominal aortic aneurysms, the aortic enlargement is accompanied by inflammation around the aorta with thickening of the adjacent tissues and potential entrapping of the adjacent organs, mostly the ureters (the tubes draining the kidneys) or intestines, thus potentially causing kidney or bowel problems. The aim of aneurysm treatment is to prevent rupture. It can be accomplished by an open repair, which involves surgery to open the abdomen and replace the aneurysm with an artificial graft (tube), or by an endovascular repair, which places an artificial stent graft inside the aneurysm, delivered through the blood vessel in the groin. In inflammatory aneurysm, inflammation and involvement of the ureters or intestines make open repair more difficult. However, endovascular repair may not last as well and may not relieve the inflammation as much or may worsen it. It is currently unclear whether open repair or endovascular repair is the best treatment for inflammatory aortic aneurysm."
}
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.