Datasets:

GEM

/

cochrane-simplification

like 4

Follow

GEM benchmark 87

cochrane-simplification-train-3400

cochrane-simplification-train-3400

Nine trials (1752 women) were included. Analyses of all included trials showed a significant reduction in the rates of all grades of PVH (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.83; nine trials; 1591 women) and severe grades PVH (3 and 4) (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.85; eight trials; 1527 women) in infants whose mothers had been given prenatal phenobarbital. These results were influenced by trials of poor quality which contributed excessive weight in the analysis due to their higher rates of severe PVH. When only the two higher quality trials were included, these beneficial effects disappeared for all grades of PVH (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08; two trials; 945 women), and severe grades of PVH (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.83; two trials; 945 women). No difference was found in the incidence of neurodevelopmental abnormalities at paediatric follow up at 18 to 24 months or seven years of age between children born to mothers given prenatal phenobarbital and children not so exposed. Maternal sedation was more likely in women receiving phenobarbital (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.37; one trial; 576 women). The evidence in this review does not support the use of prophylactic maternal phenobarbital administration to prevent PVH in preterm infants or to protect them from neurological disability in childhood. Phenobarbital administration may lead to maternal sedation. If any future trials are carried out, they should measure neurodevelopmental status at follow up.

Nine trials involving 1752 women were included in the review. The trials with low risk of bias found that phenobarbital given to women immediately prior to a very preterm birth did not decrease the risk of bleeding in the brains of the babies. No differences in child development were found on follow up at 18 to 24 months or at seven years. Maternal sedation was more likely in women receiving phenobarbital. The use of prenatal corticosteroids, known to reduce rates of periventricular haemorrhage, varied between trials and may have influenced findings.

10.1002/14651858.CD000164.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3401

cochrane-simplification-train-3401

The one included trial, in which 258 participants were randomized, was stopped early for futility. At the time of the 24-month report the follow-up rate was 95.3% for six months and 67.4% for 24 months (174 participants; 89 careful follow-up and 85 surgery). There was no evidence of a benefit of surgery on visual acuity. Measurements of visual acuity and visual fields were performed by a technician masked to the treatment received. At six months 32.0% of the surgery group had improved visual acuity by 3 or more lines compared with 42.6% of the careful follow-up group (unadjusted risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.04). At 24 months 29.4% of the surgery group had improved compared with 31.0% of the careful follow-up group (unadjusted RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.49). Participants who underwent surgery more often lost 3 or more lines of visual acuity in the study eye, although the increased risk was not statistically significant. At six months 18.9% in the surgery group had worsened visual acuity in the study eye compared with 14.8% in the careful follow-up group (RR 1.28; 95% CI 0.73 to 2.24). At 24 months 20.0% in the surgery group had worsened visual acuity in the study eye compared with 21.8% in the careful follow-up group (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.64). Participants who received surgery experienced both intraoperative and postoperative adverse events, including central retinal artery occlusion during surgery and light perception vision at six months (one participant); and immediate loss of light perception following surgery and loss of vision that persisted to the 12-month visit (two participants). In the careful follow-up group, two participants had no light perception at the six-month follow-up visit; one of these had improved to light perception at 12 months. Pain was the most common adverse event in the surgery group (17% in surgery group versus 3% in the careful follow-up group at one week). Diplopia (double vision) was the next most common complication (8% in the surgery group versus 1% in the careful follow-up group at one week); at three months there was no statistically significant difference in proportion of participants with diplopia between the two groups. The only eligible trial provided no evidence of a beneficial effect of optic nerve decompression surgery for NAION. Future research should focus on increasing our understanding of the etiology and prognosis of NAION. New treatment options should be examined in the context of randomized clinical trials.

The search for studies was done on 23 October 2014. One study (a randomized controlled trial) was found. There were 258 participants in the trial. These 258 people were randomly divided into two groups. One group received the optic nerve decompression surgery along with careful follow-up. The other group received careful follow-up alone. Careful follow-up included an ophthalmologic examination at each study visit and visual field testing at 12 months and as needed. The technician performing the follow-up tests did not know to which group the participants belonged (surgery or no surgery). Funding for this trial was provided by National Eye Institute, USA. The trial was stopped early because the surgery was not helping the participants more than careful follow-up alone. The trial found no evidence of benefit from the surgery, but there were several harms caused by the surgery, such as further vision loss. Pain and double vision were harms experienced by some participants in the surgery group at one week after the surgery. The trial investigators reported that continued enrollment would be unlikely to produce results in favor of surgery. The quality of evidence in this one trial is considered high.

10.1002/14651858.CD001538.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3402

cochrane-simplification-train-3402

We included seven studies that involved a total of 444 adults with distal femur fractures. Each of the included studies was small and assessed to be at substantial risk of bias, with four studies being quasi-randomised and none of the studies using blinding in outcome assessment. All studies provided an incomplete picture of outcome. Based on GRADE criteria, we assessed the quality of the evidence as very low for all reported outcomes, which means we are very uncertain of the reliability of these results. One study compared surgical (dynamic condylar screw (DCS) fixation) and non-surgical (skeletal traction) treatment in 42 older adults (mean age 79 years) with displaced fractures of the distal femur. This study, which did not report on PROMs, provided very low quality evidence of little between-group differences in adverse events such as death (2/20 surgical versus 1/20 non-surgical), re-operation or repeat procedures (1/20 versus 3/20) and other adverse effects including delayed union. However, while none of the findings were statistically significant, there were more complications such as pressure sores (0/20 versus 4/20) associated with prolonged immobilisation in the non-surgical group, who stayed on average one month longer in hospital. The other six studies compared different surgical interventions. Three studies, including 159 participants, compared retrograde intramedullary nail (RIMN) fixation versus DCS or blade-plate fixation (fixed-angle devices). None of these studies reported PROMS relating to function. None of the results for the reported adverse events showed a difference between the two implants. Thus, although there was very low quality evidence of a higher risk of re-operation in the RIMN group, the 95% confidence interval (CI) also included the possibility of a higher risk of re-operation for the fixed-angle device (9/83 RIMN versus 4/96 fixed-angle device; 3 studies: RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 5.57). There was no clinically important difference between the two groups found in quality of life assessed using the 36-item Short Form in one study (23 fractures). One study (18 participants) provided very low quality evidence of there being little difference in adverse events between RIMN and non-locking plate fixation. One study (53 participants) provided very low quality evidence of a higher risk of re-operation after locking plate fixation compared with a single fixed-angle device (6/28 locking plate versus 1/25 fixed-angle device; RR 5.36, 95% CI 0.69 to 41.50); however, the 95% CI also included the possibility of a higher risk of re-operation for the fixed-angle device. Neither of these trials reported on PROMs. The largest included study, which reported outcomes in 126 participants at one-year follow-up, compared RIMN versus locking plate fixation; both implants are commonly used in current practice. None of the between-group differences in the reported outcomes were statistically significant; thus the CIs crossed the line of no effect. There was very low quality evidence of better patient-reported musculoskeletal function in the RIMN group based on Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (0 to 100: best function) scores (e.g. dysfunction index: MD -5.90 favouring RIMN, 95% CI -15.13 to 3.33) as well as quality of life using the EuroQoL-5D Index (0 to 1: best quality of life) (MD 0.10 favouring RIMN, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.21). The CIs for both results included a clinically important effect favouring RIMN but also a clinically insignificant effect in favour of locking plate fixation. This review highlights the major limitations of the available evidence concerning current treatment interventions for fractures of the distal femur. The currently available evidence is incomplete and insufficient to inform current clinical practice. Priority should be given to a definitive, pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial comparing contemporary treatments such as locked plates and intramedullary nails. At minimum, these should report validated patient-reported functional and quality-of-life outcomes at one and two years. All trials should be reported in full using the CONSORT guidelines.

We searched the scientific literature up to September 2014 and found seven relevant studies with 444 participants with these fractures. One study compared surgery with non-surgical treatment and the other six studies compared the use of different surgical implants. Each of the studies was small and was designed in a way that may affect the reliability of their findings. Most studies did not report on patient-reported outcomes measures of function. We judged the quality of the reported evidence was very low and thus we are not certain that these results are true. The study comparing surgical fixation with non-surgical intervention (traction and wearing a brace) did not confirm there was any difference between the two treatments in terms of re-operations or repeat traction and bone healing. However, there were more complications such as pressure sores associated with prolonged immobilisation in the traction group, who stayed on average one month longer in hospital. Five studies compared one type of nail versus one of three different types of plate fixation. One study compared locked with non-locked plate fixation. The evidence available for the four comparisons did not confirm that any of the surgical implants were superior to any other surgical implant for any outcomes, including re-operation for complications such as lack of bone healing and infection. The review found that the available evidence was very limited and insufficient to inform current clinical practice. Further research comparing commonly used surgical treatments is needed.

10.1002/14651858.CD010606.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3403

cochrane-simplification-train-3403

We included 48 studies that involved 4937 participants and covered three types of programme: behavioural, cognitive-behavioural and multimodal. Overall, we found that group-based parenting programmes led to statistically significant short-term improvements in depression (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to -0.07), anxiety (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.01), stress (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.15), anger (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.20), guilt (SMD -0.79, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.41), confidence (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.17) and satisfaction with the partner relationship (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.09). However, only stress and confidence continued to be statistically significant at six month follow-up, and none were significant at one year. There was no evidence of any effect on self-esteem (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.42). None of the trials reported on aggression or adverse effects. The limited data that explicitly focused on outcomes for fathers showed a statistically significant short-term improvement in paternal stress (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.06). We were unable to combine data for other outcomes and individual study results were inconclusive in terms of any effect on depressive symptoms, confidence or partner satisfaction. The findings of this review support the use of parenting programmes to improve the short-term psychosocial wellbeing of parents. Further input may be required to ensure that these results are maintained. More research is needed that explicitly addresses the benefits for fathers, and that examines the comparative effectiveness of different types of programme along with the mechanisms by which such programmes bring about improvements in parental psychosocial functioning.

We included a total of 48 studies that involved 4937 participants and covered three types of programme: behavioural, cognitive-behavioural and multimodal. Overall, the results suggested statistically significant improvements in the short-term for parental depression, anxiety, stress, anger, guilt, confidence and satisfaction with the partner relationship. However, only stress and confidence continued to be statistically significant at six month follow-up, and none were significant at one year. There was no evidence of effectiveness for self-esteem at any time point. None of the studies reported aggression or adverse outcomes. Only four studies reported the outcomes for fathers separately. These limited data showed a statistically significant short-term improvement in paternal stress but did not show whether the parenting programmes were helpful in terms of improving depressive symptoms, confidence or partner satisfaction. This review shows evidence of the short-term benefits of parenting programmes on depression, anxiety, stress, anger, guilt, confidence and satisfaction with the partner relationship. The findings suggest that further input may be needed to support parents to maintain these benefits. However, more research is needed that explicitly addresses the benefits for fathers, and that provides evidence of the comparative effectiveness of different types of programme and identifies the mechanisms involved in bringing about change.

10.1002/14651858.CD002020.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3404

cochrane-simplification-train-3404

We identified three short-term trials (total of 156 participants, duration five to 12 weeks). Outcomes were prone to at least a moderate risk of overestimating positive effects. We found that virtual reality had little effects regarding compliance (3 RCTs, n = 156, RD loss to follow-up 0.02 CI -0.08 to 0.12, low quality evidence), cognitive functioning (1 RCT, n = 27, MD average score on Cognistat 4.67 CI -1.76 to 11.10, low quality evidence), social skills (1 RCT, n = 64, MD average score on social problem solving SPSI-R (Social Problem Solving Inventory - Revised) -2.30 CI -8.13 to 3.53, low quality evidence), or acceptability of intervention (2 RCTs, n = 92, RD 0.05 CI -0.09 to 0.19, low quality evidence). There were no data reported on mental state, insight, behaviour, quality of life, costs, service utilisation, or adverse effects. Satisfaction with treatment - measured using an un-referenced scale - and reported as "interest in training" was better for the virtual reality group (1 RCT, n = 64, MD 6.00 CI 1.39 to 10.61,low quality evidence). There is no clear good quality evidence for or against using virtual reality for treatment compliance among people with serious mental illness. If virtual reality is used, the experimental nature of the intervention should be clearly explained. High-quality studies should be undertaken in this area to explore any effects of this novel intervention and variations of approach.

So far, virtual reality has been used in the assessment and treatment of a range of psychiatric disorders and social anxieties, some of which include, fear of flying, public speaking anxiety, spider phobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder. There are also a few studies that examine the emotional responses of people with schizophrenia during a computer simulation with characters displaying happy, neutral, and angry emotions. Virtual reality has also been used for people with schizophrenia in social skills training and to improve processes of thinking and understanding. This review investigates the effects of virtual reality in helping support the treatment and taking of medication for people with serious mental illness. The most recent search for randomised trials was run in September 2013, only three short studies with a total of 156 people could be included. People with schizophrenia were randomised to a) skills training sessions that used virtual reality to deliver the training or b) sessions of skills training using other methods to deliver the training or c) standard care. All evidence from the trials was low quality and no real effects were found. At present, there is no clear evidence for or against using virtual reality for encouraging people with mental illness to take their medication. If virtual reality is used for people with serious mental illness, it will be of an experimental nature.There is a need to gather more good quality information on the effects of virtual reality for people with mental illness and high quality studies need to be undertaken. At this stage, the effects of virtual reality are experimental, novel and innovative but largely untested. This summary has been written by a consumer, Ben Gray of RETHINK.

10.1002/14651858.CD009928.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3405

cochrane-simplification-train-3405

The search identified one multicentre study eligible for inclusion in the review. This study prospectively assessed whether the use of multiple combination bactericidal antibiotic testing improved clinical outcomes in participants with acute pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis who were infected with multiresistant bacteria. A total of 132 participants were randomised in the study. The study investigators provided data specific to the 82 participants who were only infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa for their primary outcome of time until next pulmonary exacerbation. For participants specifically infected with only Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the hazard ratio of a subsequent exacerbation was 0.82, favouring the control group (95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.51) (P = 0.52). No further data for any of this review's outcomes specific to participants infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa were available. The risk of bias for the included study was deemed to be low. The quality of the evidence was moderate for the only outcome providing data solely for individuals with infection due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. For other outcomes, we were unable to judge the quality of the evidence as no data were available for the relevant subset of participants. The current evidence, limited to one study, shows that there is insufficient evidence to determine effect of choosing antibiotics based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to choosing antibiotics based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis with chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. A large international and multicentre study is needed to further investigate this issue. The only study included in the review was published in 2005, and we have not identified any further relevant studies up to March 2017. We therefore do not plan to update this review until new studies are published.

The search identified one study that tried to answer this question and was eligible for inclusion in the review. The study enrolled 132 people with cystic fibrosis, most of whom (82 people) had acute lung infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and randomly put them into two treatment groups. In the first group two antibiotics were selected following the testing of combinations of antibiotics and in the second group the two antibiotics were chosen after testing individual antibiotics to see how effective the drugs were against the bacterium. The study was run across several centres and assessed the clinical outcomes in the participants after a 14-day course of treatment. The study investigators were only able to provide us with data for those who were infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa for their main outcome (the time until the next acute lung infection). Choosing antibiotics based on the results of combination antibiotic testing did not lead to a longer time until the next lung infection compared to choosing antibiotics based on results of separate testing. They could not provide us with any results people infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa for other outcomes in our review. We are satisfied that the people taking part were divided into the different treatment groups completely at random and no one could have foreseen which group any individual would be in. We are also satisfied that during the study, neither the individuals or clinic personnel knew which treatment group each individual was in. There were no missing data from the study. The quality of the evidence for the only outcome for which we have data (time to the next lung infection) is moderate, but we could not judge the quality of the evidence for other outcomes as there were no separate results available for people infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

10.1002/14651858.CD006961.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3406

cochrane-simplification-train-3406

We identified 10 randomised placebo-controlled trials involving 3541 participants with hip or knee osteoarthritis. The paracetamol dose varied from 1.95 g/day to 4 g/day, and the majority of trials followed participants for three months only. Most trials did not clearly report randomisation and concealment methods and were at unclear risk of selection bias. Trials were at low risk of performance, detection, and reporting bias. At 3 weeks' to 3 months' follow-up, there was high-quality evidence that paracetamol provided no clinically important improvements in pain and physical function. Mean reduction in pain was 23 points (0 to 100 scale, lower scores indicated less pain) with placebo and 3.23 points better (5.43 better to 1.02 better) with paracetamol, an absolute reduction of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 9%) and relative reduction of 5% (2% better to 8% better) (seven trials, 2355 participants). Physical function improved by 12 points on a 0 to 100 scale (lower scores indicated better function) with placebo and was 2.9 points better (0.95 better to 4.89 better) with paracetamol, an absolute improvement of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 10%) and relative improvement of 5% (2% better to 9% better) (7 trials, 2354 participants). High-quality evidence from eight trials indicated that the incidence of adverse events was similar between groups: 515/1586 (325 per 1000) in the placebo group versus 537/1666 (328 per 1000, range 299 to 360) in the paracetamol group (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.11). There was less certainty (moderate-quality evidence) around the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and the rate of abnormal liver function tests, due to wide CIs or small event rates, indicating imprecision. Seventeen of 1480 (11 per 1000) people treated with placebo and 28/1729 (16 per 1000, range 8 to 29) people treated with paracetamol experienced serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.53; 6 trials). The incidence of withdrawals due to adverse events was 65/1000 participants in with placebo and 77/1000 (range 59 to 100) participants with paracetamol (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.55; 7 trials). Abnormal liver function occurred in 18/1000 participants treated with placebo and 70/1000 participants treated with paracetamol (RR 3.79, 95% CI 1.94 to 7.39), but the clinical importance of this effect was uncertain. None of the trials reported quality of life. Subgroup analyses indicated that the effects of paracetamol on pain and function did not differ according to the dose of paracetamol (3.0 g/day or less versus 3.9 g/day or greater). Based on high-quality evidence this review confirms that paracetamol provides only minimal improvements in pain and function for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with no increased risk of adverse events overall. Subgroup analysis indicates that the effects on pain and function do not differ according to the dose of paracetamol. Due to the small number of events, we are less certain if paracetamol use increases the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and rate of abnormal liver function tests. Current clinical guidelines consistently recommend paracetamol as the first-line analgesic medication for hip or knee osteoarthritis, given its low absolute frequency of substantive harm. However, our results call for reconsideration of these recommendations.

We included randomised clinical trials (where people are randomly put into one of two treatment groups) looking at the effects of paracetamol for people with hip or knee pain due to osteoarthritis against a placebo (a 'sugar tablet' that contains nothing that could act as a medicine). We found 10 trials with 3541 participants. On average, participants in the study were aged between 55 and 70 years, and most presented with knee osteoarthritis. The treatment dose ranged from 1.95 g/day to 4 g/day of paracetamol and participants were followed up between one and 12 weeks in all but one study, which followed people up for 24 weeks. Six trials were funded by companies that produced paracetamol. Compared with placebo tablets, paracetamol resulted in little benefit at 12 weeks. Pain (lower scores mean less pain) Improved by 3% (1% better to 5% better), or 3.2 points (1 better to 5.4 better) on a 0- to 100-point scale. • People who took paracetamol reported that their pain improved by 26 points. • People who took placebo reported that their pain improved by 23 points. Physical function (lower scores mean better function) Improved by 3% (1% better to 5% better), or 2.9 points (1.0 better to 4.9 better) on a 0- to 100-point scale. • People who took paracetamol reported that their function improved by 15 points. • People who had placebo reported that their function improved by 12 points. Side effects (up to 12 to 24 weeks) No more people had side effects with paracetamol (3% less to 3% more), or 0 more people out of 100. • 33 out of 100 people reported a side effect with paracetamol. • 33 out of 100 people reported a side effect with placebo. Serious side effects (up to 12 to 24 weeks) 1% more people had serious side effects with paracetamol (0% less to 1% more), or one more person out of 100. • Two out of 100 people reported a serious side effect with paracetamol. • One out of 100 people reported a serious side effect with placebo. Withdrawals due to adverse events (up to 12 to 24 weeks) 1% more people withdrew from treatment with paracetamol (1% less to 3% more), or one more person out of 100. • Eight out of 100 people withdrew from paracetamol treatment. • Seven out of 100 people withdrew from placebo treatment. Abnormal liver function tests (up to 12 to 24 weeks): 5% more people had abnormal liver function tests (meaning there was some inflammation or damage to the liver) with paracetamol (1% more to 10% more), or five more people out of 100. • Seven out of 100 people had an abnormal liver function test with paracetamol. • Two out of 100 people had an abnormal liver function test with placebo. High-quality evidence indicated that paracetamol provided only minimal improvements in pain and function for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with no increased risk of adverse events overall. None of the studies measured quality of life. Due to the small number of events, we were less certain if paracetamol use increased the risk of serious side effects, increased withdrawals due to side effects, and changed the rate of abnormal liver function tests. However, although there may be more abnormal liver function tests with paracetamol, the clinical implications are unknown.

10.1002/14651858.CD013273

cochrane-simplification-train-3407

cochrane-simplification-train-3407

We included 25 studies with a total of 2488 participants. Our primary outcome 'symptoms rated by participant or medical practitioner or proportion symptom-free' was commonly reported. No two trials examined the same drugs, therefore we grouped similar types of drugs together. Macrolides/streptogramins were found to be more effective than penicillin antibiotics (Risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97). In 3 trials involving 419 people, 2 of these studies used oral macrolide against intravenous (iv) penicillin demonstrating that oral therapies can be more effective than iv therapies (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). Three studies with a total of 88 people comparing a penicillin with a cephalosporin showed no difference in treatment effect (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.43). Six trials which included 538 people that compared different generations of cephalosporin, showed no difference in treatment effect (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to1.06). We found only small single studies for duration of antibiotic treatment, intramuscular versus intravenous route, the addition of corticosteroid to antibiotic treatment compared with antibiotic alone, and vibration therapy, so there was insufficient evidence to form conclusions. Only two studies investigated treatments for severe cellulitis and these selected different antibiotics for their comparisons, so we cannot make firm conclusions. We cannot define the best treatment for cellulitis and most recommendations are made on single trials. There is a need for trials to evaluate the efficacy of oral antibiotics against intravenous antibiotics in the community setting as there are service implications for cost and comfort.

We identified 25 randomised controlled trials. No two trials investigated the same antibiotics, and there was no standard treatment regime used as a comparison. We are not able to define the best treatment for cellulitis and our limited conclusions are mostly based on single trials. No single treatment was clearly superior. Surprisingly, oral antibiotics appeared to be more effective than antibiotics given into a vein for moderate and severe cellulitis. This merits further study. Antibiotics given by injection into a muscle were as effective as when given into a vein, with a lower incidence of adverse events. In one study the addition of corticosteroids to an antibiotic appeared to shorten the length of hospital stay, however further trials are needed. A single small study indicated vibration therapy may increase the rate of recovery but the results of single trials should be viewed with caution. We had insufficient data to give meaningful results for adverse events.

10.1002/14651858.CD004299.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3408

cochrane-simplification-train-3408

We included 128 trials with 8754 participants in the review, and 94 trials with 5846 participants in the analysis. Trials included in the review were funded as follows: charity (n = 19), departmental resources (n = 8), governmental sources (n = 15) and industry (in part or in total) (n = 15). The source of funding was not specified for the other studies. Results of 22 trials including 1138 participants show that an epidural containing a local anaesthetic will decrease the time required for return of gastrointestinal transit as measured by time to first flatus after an abdominal surgery (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.71 to -0.86; high quality of evidence; equivalent to 17.5 hours). The effect is proportionate to the concentration of local anaesthetic used. A total of 28 trials including 1559 participants reported a decrease in time to first faeces (stool) (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.47; low quality of evidence; equivalent to 22 hours). Thirty-five trials including 2731 participants found that pain on movement at 24 hours after surgery was also reduced (SMD -0.89, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.70; moderate quality of evidence; equivalent to 2.5 on scale from 0 to 10). From findings of 22 trials including 1154 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.23; low quality of evidence). From investigators in 17 trials including 848 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.32; low quality of evidence). Researchers in 30 trials including 2598 participants noted that epidural analgesia reduced length of hospital stay for an open surgery (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; very low quality of evidence; equivalent to one day). Data on costs were very limited. An epidural containing a local anaesthetic, with or without the addition of an opioid, accelerates the return of gastrointestinal transit (high quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anaesthetic with an opioid decreases pain after abdominal surgery (moderate quality of evidence). We did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting or anastomotic leak (low quality of evidence). For open surgery, an epidural containing a local anaesthetic would reduce the length of hospital stay (very low quality of evidence).

We included 128 trials with 8754 participants of both sexes aged between 33 and 76 years in the review and 94 trials with 5846 participants in the analysis. Three trials reported that their trial was officially registered. Trials included in the review were funded as follows: charity (n = 19), departmental resources (n = 8), governmental sources (n = 15) and industry (in part or in total) (n = 15). The source of funding was not specified for the other trials. We found that an epidural containing a local anaesthetic reduces the time required for return of gut function compared with an opioid-based regimen (equivalent to 17 hours). An epidural providing a local anaesthetic and an opioid also reduce pain (equivalent to a reduction of 2.5 on a scale from 0 to 10 for pain on movement at 24 hours after surgery) and time spent in hospital for open surgery (equivalent to one day). We found no evidence that an epidural with a local anaesthetic would affect the incidence of vomiting or poor healing of the gut. We rated the quality of the evidence as high for return of gastrointestinal function, moderate for pain treatment, low for no effect on vomiting or healing of the gut and very low for reduced time spent in the hospital after open surgery.

10.1002/14651858.CD001893.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3409

cochrane-simplification-train-3409

Ten trials enrolling 1467 infants met our inclusion criteria. Investigators in nine trials (1458 infants) administered sustained inflation with no chest compressions. Use of sustained inflation had no impact on the primary outcomes of this review: mortality in the delivery room (typical RR 2.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 63.40 (I² not applicable); typical RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.02; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 479 participants); and mortality during hospitalisation (typical RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.43; I² = 42%; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.04; I² = 24%; 9 studies, 1458 participants). The quality of the evidence was low for death in the delivery room because of limitations in study design and imprecision of estimates (only one death was recorded across studies). For death before discharge the quality was moderate: with longer follow-up there were more deaths (n = 143) but limitations in study design remained. Among secondary outcomes, duration of mechanical ventilation was shorter in the SLI group (mean difference (MD) −5.37 days, 95% CI −6.31 to −4.43; I² = 95%; 5 studies, 524 participants; low-quality evidence). Heterogeneity, statistical significance, and magnitude of effects of this outcome are largely influenced by a single study at high risk of bias: when this study was removed from the analysis, the size of the effect was reduced (MD −1.71 days, 95% CI −3.04 to −0.39; I² = 0%). Results revealed no differences in any of the other secondary outcomes (e.g. risk of endotracheal intubation outside the delivery room by 72 hours of age (typical RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.04; I² = 65%; 5 studies, 811 participants); risk of surfactant administration during hospital admission (typical RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.08; I² = 0%; 9 studies, 1458 participants); risk of chronic lung disease (typical RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.18; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 735 participants); pneumothorax (typical RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.40; I² = 34%; 8 studies, 1377 infants); or risk of patent ductus arteriosus requiring pharmacological treatment (typical RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; I² = 48%; 7 studies, 1127 infants). The quality of evidence for these secondary outcomes was moderate (limitations in study design ‒ GRADE) except for pneumothorax (low quality: limitations in study design and imprecision of estimates ‒ GRADE). We could not perform any meta-analysis in the comparison of the use of initial sustained inflation versus standard inflations in newborns receiving resuscitation with chest compressions because we identified only one trial for inclusion (a pilot study of nine preterm infants). Our meta-analysis of nine studies shows that sustained lung inflation without chest compression was not better than intermittent ventilation for reducing mortality in the delivery room (low-quality evidence ‒ GRADE) or during hospitalisation (moderate-quality evidence ‒ GRADE), which were the primary outcomes of this review. However, the single largest study, which was well conducted and had the greatest number of enrolled infants, was stopped early for higher mortality rate in the sustained inflation group. When considering secondary outcomes, such as rate of intubation, rate or duration of respiratory support, or bronchopulmonary dysplasia, we found no benefit of sustained inflation over intermittent ventilation (moderate-quality evidence ‒ GRADE). Duration of mechanical ventilation was shortened in the SLI group (low-quality evidence ‒ GRADE); this result should be interpreted cautiously, however, as it might have been influenced by study characteristics other than the intervention. There is no evidence to support the use of sustained inflation based on evidence from our review.

We collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer the review question and found 10 studies enrolling 1467 infants. In all studies, babies were born before the due date (from 23 to 36 weeks of gestational age). The sustained inflation lasted between 15 and 20 seconds at pressure between 20 and 30 cmH₂O. Most studies provided one or more additional sustained inflations in cases of poor clinical response, for example persistent low heart rate. We analysed one study (which included only nine babies) separately because researchers combined use of sustained or standard inflations with chest compressions, an additional intervention that might help babies begin normal breathing. The included studies showed no important differences among babies who received sustained versus standard inflations in terms of mortality, rate of intubation during the first three days of life, or chronic lung disease. Babies receiving sustained inflation at birth may spend fewer days on mechanical ventilation. The results of several ongoing studies might help us to determine whether sustained inflations are beneficial or harmful. At present we cannot exclude small to moderate differences between the two treatments. The quality of evidence is low to moderate because only a small number of studies have looked at this intervention, few babies were included in these studies and some studies could have been better designed. We searched for studies that had been published up to April 2019.

10.1002/14651858.CD004953.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3410

cochrane-simplification-train-3410

We included 77 randomised clinical trials, which included 6753 participants with fatty liver disease. The risks of bias (overestimation of benefits and underestimation of harms) was high in all trials. The mean sample size was 88 participants (ranging from 40 to 200 participants) per trial. Seventy-five different herbal medicine products were tested. Herbal medicines tested in the randomised trials included single-herb products (Gynostemma pentaphyllum, Panax notoginseng, andPrunus armeniaca), proprietary herbal medicines commercially available, and combination formulas prescribed by practitioners. The most commonly used herbs wereCrataegus pinnatifida,Salvia miltiorrhiza,Alisma orientalis,Bupleurum chinense,Cassia obtusifolia, Astragalus membranaceous, and Rheum palmatum. None of the trials reported death, hepatic-related morbidity, quality of life, or costs. A large number of trials reported positive effects on putative surrogate outcomes such as serum aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, glutamyltransferase, alkaline phosphatases, ultrasound, and computed tomography scan. Twenty-seven trials reported adverse effects and found no significant difference between herbal medicines versus control. However, the risk of bias of the included trials was high. The outcomes were ultrasound findings in 22 trials, liver computed tomography findings in eight trials, aspartate aminotransferase levels in 64 trials, alanine aminotransferase activity in 77 trials, and glutamyltransferase activities in 44 trials. Six herbal medicines showed statistically significant beneficial effects on ultrasound, four on liver computed tomography, 42 on aspartate aminotransferase activity, 49 on alanine aminotransferase activity, three on alkaline phosphatases activity, and 32 on glutamyltransferase activity compared with control interventions. Some herbal medicines seemed to have positive effects on aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, ultrasound, and computed tomography. We found no significant difference on adverse effects between herbal medicine and control groups. The findings are not conclusive due to the high risk of bias of the included trials and the limited number of trials testing individual herbal medicines. Accordingly, there is also high risk of random errors.

We included 77 randomised clinical trials in this review, which tested 75 herbal medicines. All trials had high risk of systematic errors (ie, bias or risk of overestimation of benefits and overestimation of harms) as well as high risks of random errors (ie, play of chance) due to the small number of people in the trials. Herbal medicines tested in the randomised clinical trials included single-herb products (Gynostemma pentaphyllum,Panax notoginseng, andPrunus armeniaca), commercially available branded herbal medicines, and combination formulas prescribed by practitioners. Herbs most commonly included as an ingredient in different products wereCrataegus pinnatifida,Salvia miltiorrhiza,Alisma orientalis,Bupleurum chinense,Cassia obtusifolia,Astragalus membranaceous, andRheum palmatum. We could not combine the results of the trials due to the range of different herbs used. We could not reach any conclusions about the use of herbal medicines for people with fatty liver disease as none of the trials reported results on death, liver-related illnesses, quality of life, or costs. A number of trials showed positive effects of herbal medicines compared with control interventions on enzyme activity (enzymes are proteins that cause chemical reactions in the body; eg, serum aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, glutamyltransferase, alkaline phosphatases), ultrasound scan findings, and computed tomography scan findings. No serious adverse effects were reported for herbal medicines. However, the methodology of the trials had high risk of systematic errors (bias). Furthermore, the individual herbs were seldomly retested, and all trials had relatively low numbers of people, which increases the risk of random errors (play of chance). Therefore, the findings are inconclusive, and rigorously conducted randomised clinical trials are required to establish the benefits and harms of herbal medicines for fatty liver disease.

10.1002/14651858.CD009059.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3411

cochrane-simplification-train-3411

We included two trials involving a total of 66 patients in this review. Pooling analyses of data was not possible due to considerable heterogeneity between the trials and a lack of data in both trials. One study found a significant increase in respiratory muscle strength favouring inspiratory muscle training over sham inspiratory muscle training, but there was no significant difference between groups on quality of life. The other study showed that patients receiving inspiratory muscle training were more likely to improve their activities of daily living, quality of life and cardiorespiratory fitness than those patients who received no intervention. However, the main results were not compared directly with breathing retraining. Furthermore, neither of the trials assessed the safety and tolerance of inspiratory muscle training. There is insufficient evidence to support inspiratory muscle training as an effective treatment to improve function after stroke, and no evidence relating to the safety of inspiratory muscle training. Further well-designed RCTs are required.

The authors found two small heterogeneous randomised trials that investigated the effect of inspiratory muscle training. These studies do not provide enough evidence to draw any conclusions about the effect of inspiratory muscle training for patients with stroke. There is also no evidence relating to the safety of inspiratory muscle training. Future well-designed studies are needed.

10.1002/14651858.CD009360.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3412

cochrane-simplification-train-3412

We identified no new studies for this updated review, which includes six studies with 1214 participants in comparisons of etoricoxib with placebo. All six studies reported on the 120 mg dose (798 participants in a comparison with placebo). Sixty-six per cent of participants with etoricoxib 120 mg and 12% with placebo reported at least 50% pain relief (NNT 1.8 (1.7 to 2.0); high-quality evidence). For dental studies only, the NNT was 1.6 (1.5 to 1.8). A single dose of 90 mg produced similar results in one large trial. Other doses (60, 180, and 240 mg) were each studied in only one treatment arm. Significantly fewer participants used rescue medication over 24 hours when taking etoricoxib 120 mg than placebo (NNT to prevent remedication 2.2 (1.9 to 2.8)), and the median time to use of rescue medication was 20 hours for etoricoxib and two hours for placebo. Adverse events were reported at a similar rate to placebo (moderate-quality evidence), with no serious events. Single-dose oral etoricoxib produces high levels of good quality pain relief after surgery, and adverse events did not differ from placebo in these studies. The 120 mg dose is as effective as, or better than, other commonly used analgesics.

We found six clinical trials with 1214 people. A single 120 mg dose of etoricoxib produced useful pain relief in 7 in 10 (66%) people with moderate or severe pain, compared with just over 1 in 10 (12%) with placebo. A single 90 mg dose produced similar results in one large trial. Pain relief lasted for 20 hours in half of people treated. Adverse events occurred at similar rates with etoricoxib and placebo in these single-dose studies. No serious adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events occurred with etoricoxib.

10.1002/14651858.CD004309.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3413

cochrane-simplification-train-3413

: With regards to the effect of adjuvant therapy on stage II colon cancer, the pooled relative risk ratio for overall survival was 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.88, 1.05). With regards to disease-free survival, the pooled relative risk ratio was 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.75, 0.92). : Although there was no improvement in overall survival in the pooled analysis, we did find that disease-free survival in patients with stage II colon cancer was signficantly better with the use of adjuvant therapy. It seems reasonable to discuss the benefits of adjuvant systemic chemotherapy with those stage II patients who have high risk features, including obstruction, perforation, inadequate lymph node sampling or T4 disease. The co-morbidities and likelihood of tolerating adjuvant systemic chemotherapy should be considered as well. There exists a need to further define which high-risk features in stage II colon cancer patients should be used to select patients for adjuvant therapy. Also, researchers must continue to search for other therapies which might be more effective, shorter in duration and less toxic than those available today.

We performed a systematic review looking at all randomized clinical trials evaluating stage II colon cancer patients and adjuvant therapy versus surgery alone. Our review found that adjuvant therapy -either systemic or regional chemotherapy or immunotherapy- can improve the outcomes of stage II patients. In counselling individual patients, the advice given should be conditioned by the patient's age and comorbidities. In addition, the high risk features of the tumour should also be considered when contemplating the benefits of systemic therapy in patients with stage II colon cancer. Further investigation is needed to elucidate which patient and tumour factors can be used to select stage II colon cancer patients for adjuvant therapy. There also exists a need to continue to search for other adjuvant therapies which might be more effective, shorter in duration and less toxic than those available today.

10.1002/14651858.CD005390.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3414

cochrane-simplification-train-3414

In the current update, we have added six new relevant studies, resulting in a total of 17 studies included in this review involving financial interventions directed at smokers or healthcare providers, or both. Full financial interventions directed at smokers had a favourable effect on abstinence at six months or longer when compared to no intervention (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.28, I² = 33%, 9333 participants). There was no evidence that full coverage interventions increased smoking abstinence compared to partial coverage interventions (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.48, I² = 64%, 5914 participants), but partial coverage interventions were more effective in increasing abstinence than no intervention (RR 1.27 95% CI 1.02 to 1.59, I² = 21%, 7108 participants). The economic evaluation showed costs per additional quitter ranging from USD 97 to USD 7646 for the comparison of full coverage with partial or no coverage. There was no clear evidence of an effect on smoking cessation when we pooled two trials of financial incentives directed at healthcare providers (RR 1.16, CI 0.98 to 1.37, I² = 0%, 2311 participants). Full financial interventions increased the number of participants making a quit attempt when compared to no interventions (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.17, I² = 15%, 9065 participants). There was insufficient evidence to show whether partial financial interventions increased quit attempts compared to no interventions (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.31, I² = 88%, 6944 participants). Full financial interventions increased the use of smoking cessation treatment compared to no interventions with regard to various pharmacological and behavioural treatments: nicotine replacement therapy (NRT): RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.09, I² = 35%, 9455 participants; bupropion: RR 3.22, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.34, I² = 71%, 6321 participants; behavioural therapy: RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.65, I² = 75%, 9215 participants. There was evidence that partial coverage compared to no coverage reported a small positive effect on the use of bupropion (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.29, I² = 0%, 6765 participants). Interventions directed at healthcare providers increased the use of behavioural therapy (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.86, I² = 85%, 25820 participants), but not the use of NRT and/or bupropion (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18, I² = 6%, 2311 participants). We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main outcome, abstinence from smoking, as moderate. In most studies participants were not blinded to the different study arms and researchers were not blinded to the allocated interventions. Furthermore, there was not always sufficient information on attrition rates. We detected some imprecision but we judged this to be of minor consequence on the outcomes of this study. Full financial interventions directed at smokers when compared to no financial interventions increase the proportion of smokers who attempt to quit, use smoking cessation treatments, and succeed in quitting. There was no clear and consistent evidence of an effect on smoking cessation from financial incentives directed at healthcare providers. We are only moderately confident in the effect estimate because there was some risk of bias due to a lack of blinding in participants and researchers, and insufficient information on attrition rates.

We searched all relevant studies that involved financial interventions directed at smokers and healthcare providers. For smokers, the aim of the healthcare financing interventions had to be to encourage the use of smoking cessation treatment or making successful quit attempts. For interventions directed at healthcare providers, the intervention had to stimulate the healthcare provider to assist people with quitting smoking, for example by prescribing smoking cessation treatment. For the update of this review, we searched studies on the effect of financial interventions on smoking cessation treatment and success in September 2016. We found six new relevant studies, resulting in a total of 17 studies. We found 15 studies directed at smokers. Covering all the costs of smoking cessation treatment for smokers (free treatment) when compared to providing no financial benefits increased the number of smokers who attempted to quit (4 studies, 9065 participants), used smoking cessation treatments (7 studies, 9455 participants), and succeeded in quitting (6 studies, 9333 participants). We found three studies directed at healthcare providers. The two studies that investigated the effect of a financial intervention on quit success (2311 participants) did not clearly show an increase in quit rates. Financial interventions directed at healthcare providers also did not have an effect on the use of smoking cessation medication (2 studies, 2311 participants). However, financial interventions did increase the number of smokers who used smoking cessation counselling (3 studies, 25,820 participants). Information on the costs of the intervention was available for eight studies (33,488 participants). The economic evaluation of the individual studies showed that although the absolute differences in quitting were small, the costs per person successfully quitting were low or moderate. We concluded that financial interventions directed at smokers increase the proportion of smokers who attempt to quit, use smoking cessation treatments, and succeed in quitting. We did not detect a clear effect on smoking cessation from financial incentives directed at healthcare providers. This review has some limitations that affect how confident we can be in the conclusions. The included studies varied substantially in quality and in methods and design, which makes it difficult to compare results.

10.1002/14651858.CD004305.pub5

cochrane-simplification-train-3415

cochrane-simplification-train-3415

We included 29 RCTs, involving a total of 4458 participants. We deemed 23 trials to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. We are uncertain of the effect of a long course of antibiotic prophylaxis (> 24 hours) compared to a short course (≤ 24 hours) on abdominal surgical site infection (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.23; I² = 0%; 7 studies, 1261 participants; very low-quality evidence), mortality (Peto OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.82; I² = 8%; 7 studies, 1261 participants; very low-quality evidence), or intra-abdominal infection (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.80; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 111 participants; very-low quality evidence). Based on very low-quality evidence from fifteen studies, involving 2020 participants, which compared different drug regimens with activity against three classes of gastrointestinal flora (gram positive, gram negative, anaerobic), we are uncertain whether there is a benefit of one regimen over another. TSA showed the majority of comparisons did not cross the alpha adjusted boundary for benefit or harm, or reached the required information size, indicating that further studies are required for these analyses. However, in the three analyses which crossed the boundary for futility, further studies are unlikely to show benefit or harm. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain about the effect of either the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis, or the superiority of one drug regimen over another for penetrating abdominal trauma on abdominal surgical site infection rates, mortality, or intra-abdominal infections. Future RCTs should be adequately powered, test currently used antibiotics, known to be effective against gut flora, use methodology to minimise the risk of bias, and adequately report the level of peritoneal contamination encountered at laparotomy.

We searched for trials involving participants of any age or sex, who underwent an emergency operation to treat penetrating abdominal trauma. The evidence is current to 23 July 2019. We included 29 studies that included 4458 participants. There were problems with the design and conduct of all of these studies, which means that we were uncertain about the results. Most of these studies were carried out over 20 years ago, using antibiotics that are not often used today. Surgical techniques and practice have also evolved substantially during this time. Seven out of the 29 studies received funding from pharmaceutical companies, whilst the other studies did not state their funding sources. Because of the very low-quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether giving longer courses of antibiotics after penetrating injury reduces the rate of infections after an operation. We are also uncertain if one antibiotic treatment is better than any other that was tested in the trials. The quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low, mainly due to problems with the way the studies were run. These problems were not using placebos (medications that look identical to the study drug but do not contain the active ingredient), a lack of blinding of both participants or the investigators or inadequate methods of randomly allocating treatments to the participants. There were also key differences in the methods used between the studies. New, better quality studies are required in order to answer questions about the use of antibiotics to reduce infections following penetrating abdominal injury.

10.1002/14651858.CD010808.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3416

cochrane-simplification-train-3416

Nine studies were included, six of which were published as abstracts. Five studies were included in the meta-analysis (86 participants who undertook pulmonary rehabilitation and 82 control participants). One study used a blinded assessor and intention-to-treat analysis. No adverse effects of pulmonary rehabilitation were reported. Pulmonary rehabilitation improved the six-minute walk distance with weighted mean difference (WMD) of 44.34 metres (95% confidence interval (CI) 26.04 to 62.64 metres) and improved oxygen consumption (VO2) peak with WMD of 1.24 mL/kg/min-1 (95% CI 0.46 to 2.03 mL/kg/min-1). Improvements in six-minute walk distance and VO2 peak were also seen in the subgroup of participants with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) (WMD 35.63 metres, 95% CI 16.02 to 55.23 metres; WMD 1.46 mL/kg/min-1, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.39 mL/kg/min-1, respectively). Reduced dyspnoea (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.66, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.28) following pulmonary rehabilitation was also seen in the IPF subgroup (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -1.12 to -0.25). Quality of life improved following pulmonary rehabilitation for all participants on a variety of measures (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.98) and for the subgroup of people with IPF (SMD 0.59, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.03). Two studies reported longer-term outcomes, with no significant effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on clinical variables or survival at three or six months. Available data were insufficient to allow examination of the impact of disease severity or exercise training modality. Pulmonary rehabilitation seems to be safe for people with ILD. Improvements in functional exercise capacity, dyspnoea and quality of life are seen immediately following pulmonary rehabilitation, with benefits also evident in IPF. Because of inadequate reporting of methods and small numbers of included participants, the quality of evidence was low to moderate. Little evidence was available regarding longer-term effects of pulmonary rehabilitation.

Nine studies were included; however only five studies provided sufficient information for the analysis (86 participants receiving pulmonary rehabilitation and 82 participants not receiving pulmonary rehabilitation). Three studies included only people with IPF, and the other six studies included people with a variety of ILDs. The average age of participants ranged from 36 to 71 years. No reports described unwelcome effects of pulmonary rehabilitation. Immediately following pulmonary rehabilitation, participants could walk farther than those who had not undertaken pulmonary rehabilitation (on average, 44 metres farther in six minutes). Participants also improved their maximum exercise capacity and reported less shortness of breath and improved quality of life. People with IPF also experienced improvements in exercise capacity, dyspnoea and quality of life following pulmonary rehabilitation. Information was insufficient to establish whether ongoing effects were noted once pulmonary rehabilitation had stopped. Because of inadequate reporting of methods and small numbers of participants, the quality of evidence was low to moderate. This Cochrane plain language summary is current to June 2014.

10.1002/14651858.CD006322.pub3

cochrane-simplification-train-3417

cochrane-simplification-train-3417

We included 67 studies (representing 3632 women with epithelial ovarian cancer). The most striking observations of this review address the lack of uniformity in conduct and reporting of early-phase immunotherapy studies. Response definitions show substantial variation between trials, which makes comparison of trial results unreliable. Information on adverse events is frequently limited. Furthermore, reports of both RCTs and NRSs frequently lack the relevant information necessary for risk of bias assessment. Therefore, we cannot rule out serious biases in most of the included trials. However, selection, attrition, and selective reporting biases are likely to have affected the studies included in this review. GRADE ratings were high only for survival; for other primary outcomes, GRADE ratings were very low. The largest body of evidence is currently available for CA-125-targeted antibody therapy (17 studies, 2347 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Non-randomised studies of CA-125-targeted antibody therapy suggest improved survival among humoral and/or cellular responders, with only moderate adverse events. However, four large randomised placebo-controlled trials did not show any clinical benefit, despite induction of immune responses in approximately 60% of participants. Time to relapse with CA-125 monoclonal antibody versus placebo, respectively, ranged from 10.3 to 18.9 months versus 10.3 to 13 months (six RCTs, 1882 participants; high-certainty evidence). Only one RCT provided data on overall survival, reporting rates of 80% in both treatment and placebo groups (three RCTs, 1062 participants; high-certainty evidence). Other small studies targeting many different tumour antigens have presented promising immunological results. As these strategies have not yet been tested in RCTs, no reliable inferences about clinical efficacy can be made. Given the promising immunological results and the limited side effects and toxicity reported, exploration of clinical efficacy in large well-designed RCTs may be worthwhile. We conclude that despite promising immunological responses, no clinically effective antigen-specific active immunotherapy is yet available for ovarian cancer. Results should be interpreted cautiously, as review authors found a significant dearth of relevant information for assessment of risk of bias in both RCTs and NRSs.

We identified 67 studies, which included 3632 women with ovarian cancer and were published between 1966 and 2017. The most frequently described strategy was administration of antibodies targeting the tumour antigen CA-125 (2347 participants in 17 studies). Most of these studies primarily evaluated safety and immunological responses. Severe flu-like and gastrointestinal symptoms occurred in 7% to 30% of participants. Researchers frequently detected antibodies and immune cells recognising the tumour antigen CA-125, albeit response rates varied between studies. Despite these promising immunological responses, four large studies reported no survival advantage for participants treated with CA-125-directed antibody over those given placebo. For strategies not relying on antibody administration, similar conclusions cannot yet be drawn. Overall, study authors report that treatment was well tolerated and inflammatory side effects at the injection site were most frequently observed. Researchers observed responses of the immune system for most strategies studied, but the clinical benefit of these strategies remains to be evaluated in large trials. Because no high-certainty evidence of clinical benefit is currently available, antibody therapy targeting CA-125 should not be incorporated into standard treatment in its current form. Based on lack of uniformity in included studies, we strongly advocate universal adoption of response definitions, guidelines for adverse events reporting, and directives for trial conduct and reporting. Furthermore, results from ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are awaited, and further RCTs should be conducted.

10.1002/14651858.CD007287.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3418

cochrane-simplification-train-3418

Eight randomised controlled trials were identified. A total 976 men were allocated to receive a PDE-5 inhibitor and 741 were randomised to the control groups. Overall, 80% of the participants suffered from type 2 diabetes mellitus. The weighted mean difference (WMD) for the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questions 3 and 4 (frequency of penetration during and maintaining erection to completion of intercourse) was 0.9 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.1) and 1.1 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.2) at the end of the study period, in favour of the intervention group. The WMD for the IIEF erectile dysfunction domain at the end of the study period was 6.6 (95% CI 5.2 to 7.9) in favour of the PDE-5 inhibitors arm. The relative risk (RR) for answering "yes" to a global efficacy question ( "did the treatment improve your erections?") was 3.8 (CI 95% 3.1 to 4.5) in the PDE-5 inhibitors compared with the control arm. The WMD between the percentage of successful attempts in the PDE-5 inhibitors and in the control arm was 26.7 (95% CI 23.1 to 30.3). Mortality was not reported in any of the included trials. Adverse cardiovascular effects were reported in one study. Headache was the most frequent adverse event reported, flushing was the second most common event, with upper respiratory tract complaints and flu like syndromes, dyspepsia, myalgia, abnormal vision and back pain also reported in a descending order of frequency. The overall risk ratio for developing any adverse reaction was 4.8 (CI 95% 3.74 to 6.16) in the PDE-5 inhibitors arm as compared to the control. Sufficient evidence exists that PDE-5 inhibitors form a care that improves erectile dysfunction in diabetic men.

In this review we assessed the effect of these agents on erectile dysfunction in diabetic people. Eight studies with 976 men randomised to PDE-5 inhibitor therapy and a duration of mainly 12 weeks were evaluated. Compared to placebo treatment, these agents showed favourable effects in scores estimating sexual life, with an increased rate of adverse effects like headache and flushing after PDE-inhibitor therapy. Mortality was not reported in any of the included trials. Quality of life, with the exception of scores for sexual life, was not relevantly affected. If taken as prescribed, PDE-5 inhibitors comprise a valuable treatment option for erectile dysfunction in men with diabetes.

10.1002/14651858.CD002187.pub3

cochrane-simplification-train-3419

cochrane-simplification-train-3419

Six multicentre, well designed studies including 5640 participants were eligible for this review. Pooling analysis did not performed due to the data not similar enough. Two studies included primary EOC participants, remain four included recurrent EOC participants. In primary EOC participants, topotecan did not show benefit on overall survival (OS) (HR 1.051, 95%CI 0.925 to 1.194, and HR 1.051, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19, respectively) and progression-free survival (PFS)(HR 1.066, 95%CI 0.958 to 1.186, and HR 1.18, 95%CI 0.86- 1.63, respectively). The median overall survival of participants treated by topotecan were 39.6 to 63 weeks, no significant difference was found in comparing with no further cytotoxic or noncytotoxic treatment (P = 0.30), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD)(P=0.341), paclitaxel (P=0.44), topotecan plus thalidomide (P=0.67), respectively; but significantly superior than treosulfan (P = 0.0023). in the platinum-sensitive participants group, overall survival (OS) favoured PLD over Topotecan (HR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.05). The greatest effect was seen in the partially platinum sensitive subgroup where HR was 1.58 (1.071-2.335). To comparable effectiveness to prolong progression-free survival (PFS), topotecan was 16 to 23 weeks, no statistical significant difference existed in the comparing with PLD (P= 0.095), and no further cytotoxic or noncytotoxic treatment (P=0.31, HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.23); Topotecan showed significantly delayed the progression campared with treosulfan (23.1 weeks versus 12.7 weeks, P = 0.0020), but no significant difference with paclitaxel (18.9 weeks versus 14.7 weeks, P=0.076); on the PFS, topotecan significantly shorter than topotecan plus thalidomide (4 months versus 6 months, P = 0.02). Topotecan was more hematologically toxic compared with paclitaxel, PLD, treosulfan, relative risks (RRs) of hematological events ranged from 1.03 to 14.46 and 1.73 to 27.12, or incidence were 50% versus 12.2%, respectively. Small tumour diameter, sensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy was associated with better prognosis. Three studies with lower risk of bias, remain four studies unclear due to poor reporting of the methodology. The evidence quality ranged from low to high, Topotecan appears to have a similar level of effectiveness as paclitaxel, topotecan plus thalidomide, but shorter overall survival than PLD in the platinum-sensitive participants; adelays progression of disease than paclitaxel, treosulfan; topotecan plus thalidomide superior than topotecan alone on PFS. After received carboplatin and paclitaxel, further treatment by topotecan not appeared benefit than no further treatment for ovarian cancer on overall survival and progression-free survival. Topotecan may has different patterns of side effects. The quality of evidence from these studies ranged from low to moderate. More large, well-designed and good conducted and good reported, particularly post-market studies are still required in the future in order to conform the effect and safety, and to have better representativeness.

Six multicentre, well designed pre-market studies including 5640 participants were eligible for this review. Pooling analysis did not performed in four trials due to the data not similar enough, but conducted for two trials. Topotecan appears to have a similar level of effectiveness as paclitaxel, topotecan plus thalidomide, and superior than treosulfan, but shorter overall survival than pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. Topotecan delays progression of disease than paclitaxel, treosulfan; topotecan plus thalidomide superior than topotecan alone on PFS, but topotecan alone significantly shorter than topotecan plus thalidomide. Further consolidation treatment with topotecan does not improve PFS for participants with advanced ovarian cancer who respond to initial chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel. Evidence from three studies were high quality, remain four studies were low or moderate due to poor reporting of the methodology. For gaining the better representativeness, more large, well-designed randomised controlled trials of post-market drug are required in the future.

10.1002/14651858.CD005589.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3420

cochrane-simplification-train-3420

We included two studies in this review, both of which were double-blind, randomised controlled trials comparing perioperative beta-adrenergic blockade (metoprolol) with placebo, on cardiovascular outcomes in people undergoing major non-cardiac vascular surgery. We included 599 participants receiving beta-adrenergic blockers (301 participants) or placebo (298 participants). The overall quality of studies was good. However, one study did not report random sequence generation or allocation concealment techniques, indicating possible selection bias, and the other study did not report outcome assessor blinding and was possibly underpowered. It should be noted that several of the outcomes were only reported in a single study and neither of the studies reported on vascular patency/graft occlusion, which reduces the quality of evidence to moderate. There was no evidence that perioperative beta-adrenergic blockade reduced all-cause mortality (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.03 to 15.02), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32), non-fatal myocardial infarction (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.49; P value = 0.53), arrhythmia (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.88), heart failure (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.23), stroke (OR 2.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 67.08), composite cardiovascular events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39; P value = 0.57) or re-hospitalisation at 30 days (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.52). However, there was strong evidence that beta-adrenergic blockers increased the odds of intra-operative bradycardia (OR 4.97, 95% CI 3.22 to 7.65; P value < 0.00001) and intra-operative hypotension (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; P value = 0.0005). This meta-analysis currently offers no clear evidence that perioperative beta-adrenergic blockade reduces postoperative cardiac morbidity and mortality in people undergoing major non-cardiac vascular surgery. There is evidence that intra-operative bradycardia and hypotension are more likely in people taking perioperative beta-adrenergic blockers, which should be weighed with any benefit.

We identified two studies that evaluated beta-blockers giving during surgery (perioperatively) in people undergoing major non-cardiac vascular surgery, with follow-up data on cardiovascular outcomes. A total of 599 participants were randomised to receive beta-blockers (301 participants) or placebo (298 participants). Both studies were double-blind (neither participants nor surgeon were aware of the treatment), randomised controlled trials evaluating the beta-blocker, metoprolol. The results of the analysis offered no clear evidence that perioperative beta-blockers reduced death from any cause (all-cause mortality), cardiovascular death, non-fatal heart attack, irregular heartbeat (arrhythmia), heart failure, stroke, combined cardiovascular events or re-hospitalisation at 30 days. There was evidence to support that beta-blockers increased the risk of intra-operative low heart rate (bradycardia) and low blood pressure (hypotension). These complications should be weighed with any benefit when considering the use of beta-blockers in this population. Study quality was good for both trials. One trial did not adequately describe their randomisation techniques and the other trial did not report whether the outcome assessors were blinded to the treatment group, and was possibly underpowered. With only two studies included, several of the outcomes only had data from a single study, and neither of the studies reported on blockage or obstruction of blood vessels (vascular patency/graft occlusion), reducing the quality of evidence to moderate.

10.1002/14651858.CD006342.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3421

cochrane-simplification-train-3421

Five trials were included with 787 participants in total. All were randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group studies. We conducted a meta-analysis of two trials (114 participants) and the results gave moderate quality evidence that oral corticosteroids did not prevent postherpetic neuralgia six months after the onset of herpes (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.99). One of these trials was at high risk of bias because of incomplete outcome data, the other was at low risk of bias overall. The three other trials that fulfilled our inclusion criteria were not included in the meta-analysis because the outcomes were reported at less than one month or not in sufficient detail to add to the meta-analysis. These three trials were generally at low risk of bias. Adverse events during or within two weeks after stopping treatment were reported in all five included trials. There were no significant differences in serious or non-serious adverse events between the corticosteroid and placebo groups. There was also no significant difference between the treatment groups and placebo groups in other secondary outcome analyses and subgroup analyses. The review was first published in 2008 and no new RCTs were identified for inclusion in subsequent updates in 2010 and 2012. There is moderate quality evidence that corticosteroids given acutely during zoster infection are ineffective in preventing postherpetic neuralgia. In people with acute herpes zoster the risks of administration of corticosteroids do not appear to be greater than with placebo, based on moderate quality evidence. Corticosteroids have been recommended to relieve the zoster-associated pain in the acute phase of disease. If further research is designed to evaluate the efficacy of corticosteroids for herpes zoster, long-term follow-up should be included to observe their effect on the transition from acute pain to postherpetic neuralgia. Future trials should include measurements of function and quality of life.

Five trials were identified from a systematic search of the literature which were of high enough quality to be included in the review. These trials involved 787 participants in total. We were able to combine the results from two trials (114 participants) and there was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and control groups in the presence of postherpetic neuralgia six months after the onset of the acute herpetic rash. Two of the three other included trials reported results at less than one month, so these participants did not fulfil the current criteria for a diagnosis of postherpetic neuralgia. The last trial reported results in a format unsuitable for meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in serious or non-serious adverse events between the corticosteroids and placebo groups. There was also no significant difference between the treatment groups and placebo groups in other secondary outcome analyses and subgroup analyses. It can be concluded that, based on moderate quality evidence, corticosteroids are not effective in preventing postherpetic neuralgia.

10.1002/14651858.CD005582.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3422

cochrane-simplification-train-3422

Twenty studies were identified for all the comparison groups, involving 1609 patients. There were seven studies (with 443 patients) comparing terlipressin to placebo, five of which were considered to be high quality studies based on the Jadad scale. The meta-analysis indicates that terlipressin was associated with a statistically significant reduction in all cause mortality compared to placebo (relative risk 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.49 to 0.88). Three studies (with 302 patients) were identified comparing terlipressin to somatostatin, two of which were high quality studies; only one high quality study (219 patients) comparing terlipressin to endoscopic treatment was identified. Within the limited power provided by these small numbers of patients, no statistically significant difference was demonstrated between terlipressin and either somatostatin or endoscopic treatment in any of the outcomes. For the remaining comparison groups (terlipressin versus balloon tamponade, terlipressin versus octreotide, and terlipressin versus vasopressin) only small, low quality studies were identified and no difference was demonstrated in any of the major outcomes. There was no significant difference between the terlipressin group and any of the comparison groups in the number of adverse events that caused death or withdrawal of medication. On the basis of a 34% relative risk reduction in mortality, terlipressin should be considered to be effective in the treatment of acute variceal hemorrhage. Further, since no other vasoactive agent has been shown to reduce mortality in single studies or meta-analyses, terlipressin might be the vasoactive agent of choice in acute variceal bleeding.

The reviewers evaluated the safety and effectiveness of a drug called terlipressin: they reported that terlipressin appears to be as safe as other treatments and that terlipressin may reduce the mortality from variceal bleeding as compared to placebo. The reviewers did not have sufficient data to decide whether terlipressin was better or worse than other available treatments such as other drugs (somatostatin, octreotide) or endoscopic treatment.

10.1002/14651858.CD002147

cochrane-simplification-train-3423

cochrane-simplification-train-3423

We included 13 RCTs (n=485), with between eight and 15 weeks follow-up. The results of the individual trials were heterogeneous. Combining all trials, participants receiving calcium supplementation as compared to control had a statistically significant reduction in SBP (mean difference: -2.5 mmHg, 95% CI: -4.5 to -0.6, I2 = 42%), but not DBP (mean difference: -0.8 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.1 to 0.4, I2 = 48%). Sub-group analyses indicated that heterogeneity between trials could not be explained by dose of calcium or baseline blood pressure. Heterogeneity was reduced when poor quality trials were excluded. The one trial reporting adequate concealment of allocation and the one trial reporting adequate blinding yielded results consistent with the primary meta-analysis. Due to poor quality of included trials and heterogeneity between trials, the evidence in favour of causal association between calcium supplementation and blood pressure reduction is weak and is probably due to bias. This is because poor quality studies generally tend to over-estimate the effects of treatment. Larger, longer duration and better quality double-blind placebo controlled trials are needed to assess the effect of calcium supplementation on blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes.

This review did not find robust evidence that oral calcium supplementation reduces high blood pressure in adults. It reviewed 13 trials enrolling 485 people, which compared calcium supplementation with placebo or no treatment, and measured blood pressure 8 to 15 weeks later. On average, people receiving extra calcium achieved slightly lower systolic blood pressure at the end of trials. However, most trials were of poor quality, so their results may not be reliable. Trials were too small and short to measure whether extra calcium reduces the risk of death, heart attack or stroke. Calcium usually had no more adverse effects than placebo. Larger, longer duration, better quality trials are needed to clarify whether calcium supplementation can lower high blood pressure.

10.1002/14651858.CD004639.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3424

cochrane-simplification-train-3424

Eleven RCTs were included (N = 574) and 28 excluded. All except one study enrolled infants of more than 32 weeks' gestation. Limited information suggested that infants in both 'once a day' as well as 'multiple doses a day' regimens showed adequate clearance of sepsis (typical RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.19; typical RD 0.00, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.19; 3 trials; N = 37). 'Once a day' gentamicin regimen was associated with fewer failures to attain peak level of at least 5 µg/ml (typical RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.47; typical RD −0.13, 95% CI −0.19 to −0.08; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 8; 9 trials; N = 422); and fewer failures to achieve trough levels of 2 µg/ml or less (typical RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.55; typical RD −0.22, 95% CI −0.29 to −0.15; NNTB = 4; 11 trials; N = 503). 'Once a day' gentamicin achieved higher peak levels (MD 2.58, 95% CI 2.26 to 2.89; 10 trials; N = 440) and lower trough levels (MD −0.57, 95% CI −0.69 to −0.44; 10 trials; N = 440) than 'multiple doses a day' regimen. There was no significant difference in ototoxicity between two groups (typical RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.18 to 16.25; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI −0.04 to 0.05; 5 trials; N = 214). Nephrotoxicity was not noted with either of the treatment regimens. Overall, the quality of evidence was considered to be moderate on GRADE analysis, given the small sample size and unclear/high risk of bias in some of the domains in a few of the included studies. There is insufficient evidence from the currently available RCTs to conclude whether a 'once a day' or a 'multiple doses a day' regimen of gentamicin is superior in treating proven neonatal sepsis. However, data suggest that pharmacokinetic properties of a 'once a day' gentamicin regimen are superior to a 'multiple doses a day' regimen in that it achieves higher peak levels while avoiding toxic trough levels. There was no change in nephrotoxicity or auditory toxicity. Based on the assessment of pharmacokinetics, a 'once a day regimen' may be superior in treating sepsis in neonates of more than 32 weeks' gestation.

Eleven scientific studies were analysed to derive the best available evidence. The majority of the studies included newborn babies born after 32 weeks' gestation. The main outcomes assessed were drug levels in the blood and kidney functions. The search was updated to 29 April 2016. Safer and potentially more effective levels of the drug were maintained using a 'one dose per day' treatment schedule. No differences in the risk of adverse effects on the kidney function or hearing were noted between two regimens. The quality was evidence was considered as moderate because the sample size was relatively small and two of the studies were scientifically less robust.

10.1002/14651858.CD005091.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3425

cochrane-simplification-train-3425

We included three RCTs, all new to this update, of very low to low methodological quality, with a total of 270 participants. Two studies exclusively enrolled participants with a known positive response to BtA treatment. This raises concerns of population enrichment, with a higher probability of benefit from BtA treatment. None of the trials were free of for-profit bias, nor did they provide information regarding registered study protocols. All trials evaluated the effect of a single Bt treatment session, and not repeated treatment sessions, using doses from 100 U to 250 U of BtA (all onabotulinumtoxinA, or Botox, formulations) and 5000 U to 10,000 U of BtB (rimabotulinumtoxinB, or Myobloc/Neurobloc). We found no difference between the two types of botulinum toxin in terms of overall efficacy, with a mean difference of -1.44 (95% CI -3.58 to 0.70) points lower on the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) for BtB-treated participants, measured at two to four weeks after injection. The proportion of participants with adverse events was also not different between BtA and BtB (BtB versus BtA risk ratio (RR) 1.40; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.96). However, when compared to BtA, treatment with BtB was associated with an increased risk of one adverse events of special interest, namely treatment-related sore throat/dry mouth (BtB versus BtA RR of 4.39; 95% CI 2.43 to 7.91). Treatment-related dysphagia (swallowing difficulties) was not different between BtA and BtB (RR 2.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 10.41). The two types of botulinum toxin were otherwise clinically non-distinguishable in all the remaining outcomes. The previous version of this review did not include any trials, since these were still ongoing at the time. Therefore, with this update we are able to change the conclusions of this review. There is low quality evidence that a single treatment session of BtA (specifically onabotulinumtoxinA) and a single treatment session of BtB (rimabotulinumtoxinB) are equally effective and safe in the treatment of adults with certain types of cervical dystonia. Treatment with BtB appears to present an increased risk of sore throat/dry mouth, compared to BtA. Overall, there is no clinical evidence from these single-treatment trials to support or contest the preferential use of one form of botulinum toxin over the other.

We performed a rigorous search of the medical literature in October 2016 and found three studies that compared a single treatment session of BtA with BtB. These studies included a total of 270 participants, with on average a moderate disease impairment. The participants remained in the studies for a short period of time - between 16 and 20 weeks after the treatment. The average age of people in the studies was 53.3 years, and they had had cervical dystonia for an average of 6.6 to 7.9 years before taking part in the trials. Most, 63.3%, of the people in the studies were women. All three of the studies were funded by drug manufacturers with possible interests in the results of the studies. The results show little or no difference between BtA and BtB in the main measures of overall improvement and safety, including the total number of adverse (unwanted or harmful) events. There was also little or no difference between BtA and BtB in the self-evaluations reported by the study participants. Based on the results we would expect that, out of 1000 people with cervical dystonia treated with BtB, there would be 362 more people who experience dry mouth/sore throat compared to 1000 people treated with BtA. The studies which looked at the duration of effect showed little or no difference between BtA and BtB. None of the studies examined the impact of either Bt on quality of life. All of the studies included participants that were different to the average person who suffers from cervical dystonia. To be included participants had to have a history of successful treatment with Bt. People with certain types of cervical dystonia, in particular the forms that make the head turn backward or forward, were not allowed to participate in the studies. Not enough participants were included across the studies for us to be completely confident in the results for the total number of adverse events, the self-reported evaluations by participants or the pain assessment. The quality of the evidence for overall improvement and total number of adverse events was low. The quality of the evidence for more sore throat/dry mouth in people receiving BtB is moderate. The quality of the evidence where participants gave their self-assessments is low. No definite conclusions can be drawn regarding overall safety and long-term utility of BtA compared to BtB in cervical dystonia.

10.1002/14651858.CD004314.pub3

cochrane-simplification-train-3426

cochrane-simplification-train-3426

We included five new studies in this update. In total, we included 11 trials in the review, including data from 12,944 adult participants, who suffered either out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) or in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). We excluded studies explicitly including patients with cardiac arrest caused by trauma, drowning, hypothermia and toxic substances. These conditions are routinely excluded from cardiac arrest intervention studies because they have a different underlying pathophysiology, require a variety of interventions specific to the underlying condition and are known to have a prognosis different from that of cardiac arrest with no obvious cause. The exclusions were meant to reduce heterogeneity in the population while maintaining generalisability to most patients with sudden cardiac death. The overall quality of evidence for the outcomes of included studies was moderate to low due to considerable risk of bias. Three studies (N = 7587) reported on the designated primary outcome of survival to hospital discharge with good neurologic function (defined as a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of one or two), which had moderate quality evidence. One study showed no difference with mechanical chest compressions (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.39), one study demonstrated equivalence (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.04), and one study demonstrated reduced survival (RR 0.41, CI 0.21 to 0.79). Two other secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission (N = 7224) and survival to hospital discharge (N = 8067), also had moderate quality level of evidence. No studies reported a difference in survival to hospital admission. For survival to hospital discharge, two studies showed benefit, four studies showed no difference, and one study showed harm associated with mechanical compressions. No studies demonstrated a difference in adverse events or injury patterns between comparison groups but the quality of data was low. Marked clinical and statistical heterogeneity between studies precluded any pooled estimates of effect. The evidence does not suggest that CPR protocols involving mechanical chest compression devices are superior to conventional therapy involving manual chest compressions only. We conclude on the balance of evidence that mechanical chest compression devices used by trained individuals are a reasonable alternative to manual chest compressions in settings where consistent, high-quality manual chest compressions are not possible or dangerous for the provider (eg, limited rescuers available, prolonged CPR, during hypothermic cardiac arrest, in a moving ambulance, in the angiography suite, during preparation for extracorporeal CPR [ECPR], etc.). Systems choosing to incorporate mechanical chest compression devices should be closely monitored because some data identified in this review suggested harm. Special attention should be paid to minimising time without compressions and delays to defibrillation during device deployment.

The evidence is current to August 2017. We searched the literature and found a total of 2554 citations that were potentially relevant. After reviewing each of these, we found 11 articles describing clinical trials that could help us answer our question. Taken together, these trials included 12,944 adult participants who suffered cardiac arrest either in-hospital or out-of-hospital. The newest studies identified in this update are larger and of higher quality than those that had been identified in prior versions of this review. Several studies were sponsored by device manufacturers. We found that available studies have important differences from one another. The most important differences were the type of mechanical device studied and the type of CPR protocol provided for patients assigned to the manual chest compression group. These differences make comparisons across studies challenging. Some studies reported improvements in rate of survival for patients treated with mechanical chest compressions compared to patients treated with manual chest compressions, while others reported no difference or even suggested harm associated with mechanical chest compressions. When considering all of the identified studies together, it seems like mechanical chest compression devices probably have a very similar effect on survival when compared with high-quality manual chest compressions. With the inclusion of several large studies, the overall quality of evidence has improved considerably, and now may be considered to be of low to moderate quality.

10.1002/14651858.CD007260.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3427

cochrane-simplification-train-3427

We identified 11 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that generated 15 publications. All trials applied an intention-to-treat analysis with varied randomisation methods. The 11 studies recruited 778 patients; 712 children and adolescents and 66 adults. We assessed all 11 studies to be at low to unclear risk of bias for the following domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment and selective reporting. For the other domains (blinding, incomplete outcome data, other bias) assessments were varied (low, unclear and high risk of bias). We could not conduct a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity of the studies and the quality of the evidence was low to very low (GRADE ratings). Reported rates of seizure freedom reached as high as 55% in a classical 4:1 KD group after three months and reported rates of seizure reduction reached as high as 85% in a classical 4:1 KD group after three months (GRADE rating low). One trial found no significant difference between the fasting-onset and gradual-onset KD for rates of seizure freedom, and reported a greater rate of seizure reduction in the gradual-onset KD group. Studies assessing the efficacy of the MAD reported seizure freedom rates of up to 25% and seizure reduction rates of up to 60% in children. One study used a simplified MAD (sMAD) and reported seizure freedom rates of 15% and seizure reduction rates of 56% in children. One study utilised a MAD in adults and reported seizure reduction rates of 35%, but no patients became seizure free (GRADE rating low). Adverse effects of the dietary interventions were experienced in all studies. The most commonly reported adverse effects were gastrointestinal syndromes. It was common that adverse effects were the reason for participants dropping out of trials (GRADE rating low). Other reasons for dropout included lack of efficacy and non-acceptance of the diet (GRADE rating low). Although there was some evidence for greater antiepileptic efficacy for a classical 4:1 KD over lower ratios, the classical 4:1 KD was consistently associated with more adverse effects. One study assessed the effect of dietary interventions on quality of life, cognition and behavioural functioning, reporting participants in the KD group to be more active, more productive and less anxious after four months, compared to the control group. However, no significant difference was found in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between the KD group and control group at four or 16 months (GRADE rating very low). The RCTs discussed in this review show promising results for the use of KDs in epilepsy. However, the limited number of studies, small sample sizes and the limited studies in adults, resulted in a low to very low overall quality of evidence. There were adverse effects within all of the studies and for all KD variations, such as short-term gastrointestinal-related disturbances and increased cholesterol. However, study periods were short, therefore the long-term risks associated with these adverse effects is unknown. Attrition rates remained a problem with all KDs and across all studies; reasons for this being lack of observed efficacy and dietary tolerance. Only one study reported the use of KDs in adults with epilepsy; therefore further research would be of benefit. Other more palatable but related diets, such as the MAD, may have a similar effect on seizure control as the classical KD, but this assumption requires more investigation. For people who have medically intractable epilepsy or people who are not suitable for surgical intervention, KDs remain a valid option; however, further research is required.

We searched medical databases for randomised controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) of adults or children with epilepsy, where a ketogenic diet was compared with other treatments. We found 11 randomised controlled trials, with 778 participants. The trials were between two and 16 months long. The short-term side effects of ketogenic diets included diarrhoea, constipation and vomiting. Long-term effects are unknown from these studies. All studies reported participants dropping out, due to lack of improvement in seizures and poor tolerance of the diet. One study reported upon the effect of ketogenic diets on quality of life, cognition and behaviour. No difference was found in the quality of life of those following a ketogenic diet and the group receiving care as usual, but participants following the ketogenic diet were found to be more active, more productive and less anxious. More research is needed in these areas. Recently, other, better tolerated, ketogenic diets, such as the modified Atkins diet, found similar effects on seizure control as those more restrictive ketogenic diets. However, more research is required. The studies included in this review were limited by small numbers of participants and only children were included in 10 of the 11 studies, therefore, we judged the quality of the evidence to be low to very low. There is little research at present into the use of these diets in adults, therefore, more research is required in this area. This evidence is current to April 2017.

10.1002/14651858.CD001903.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3428

cochrane-simplification-train-3428

The included study was a single-institution, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of intralesional cidofovir administered at the time of surgical debulking. Adults (n = 15) and children (n = 4) were included. We judged the study to have a reasonably low risk of bias. After a 12-month trial period, no difference was found between the cidofovir and placebo groups. Both groups showed a significant reduction in disease extent (as assessed at the time of surgery using the Derkay Scoring System), but no significant change in health-related quality of life. There is insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of antiviral agents as adjuvant therapy in the management of recurrent respiratory papillomatosis in children or adults. The included randomised controlled trial showed no advantage of intralesional cidofovir over placebo at 12 months. The study was limited by a small sample size and a change in the cidofovir concentration midway through the trial, from 0.3 mg/ml in children and 0.75 mg/ml in adults, to 5 mg/ml in both adults and children. An adequately powered randomised controlled trial of intra-lesional cidofovir, consistently using higher concentrations of cidofovir in comparison with injected placebo, would be required to determine effectiveness convincingly. Future studies must include health-related quality of life and symptom-based outcome measures.

This review found one good quality study of cidofovir (an antiviral agent) injected into the warts at the time of surgical removal. After one year of treatment, however, this study found no benefit of the injected cidofovir when compared to injected salt water solution (placebo). There is still a need for a larger randomised study which includes more patients, and higher doses of cidofovir.

10.1002/14651858.CD005053.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3429

cochrane-simplification-train-3429

We included two studies involving 252 children with AOM aged from three months to six years receiving hospital ambulatory care who were treated with intramuscular ceftriaxone, and who were then randomised to the corticosteroid group (corticosteroid and corticosteroid plus antihistamine) or the placebo group (antihistamine and double placebo). In one study, children also had a needle aspiration of middle ear fluid. Both studies were at unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment, and unclear to high risk of bias for selective reporting. One study (N = 179) included pain as an outcome, but we were unable to derive the proportion of children with persistent pain at Day 5 and Day 14. Reduction of overall or specific symptoms was presented as improvement in clinical symptoms and resolution of inflamed tympanic membranes without the need for additional antibiotic treatment: at Day 5 (94% of children in the treatment group (N = 89) versus 89% in the placebo group (N = 90); risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.16) and Day 14 (91% versus 87%; RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17). Low-quality evidence meant that we are uncertain of the effectiveness of corticosteroids for this outcome. The second study (N = 73) reported a reduction of overall or specific symptoms without additional antibiotic treatment during the first two weeks as a favourable outcome. Children in the treatment group had more favourable outcomes (adjusted odds ratio 65.9, 95% CI 1.28 to 1000; P = 0.037), although the numbers were small. We were unable to pool the results with the other study because it did not report the proportion of children with this outcome by treatment group. Only one study reported adverse effects of corticosteroids (e.g. drowsiness, nappy rash), but did not quantify incidence, so we were unable to draw conclusions about adverse effects. Neither study reported a reduction in overall or specific symptom duration. The evidence for the effect of systemic corticosteroids on AOM is of low to very low quality, meaning the effect of systemic corticosteroids on important clinical outcomes in AOM remains uncertain. Large, high-quality studies are required to resolve the question.

We included two studies involving 252 children with AOM, aged from three months to six years, receiving hospital ambulatory care. Children were treated with an antibiotic injection and either oral corticosteroid or a placebo (treatment with no effect). In one study, fluid from the middle ear was collected by inserting a needle through the eardrum to measure the level of inflammation. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Center for Research Resources, NIH, US Public Health Service funded both studies. Pharmaceutical companies provided the drug but did not contribute any other scientific or financial support. Corticosteroids did not make a significant difference in improving the symptoms and inflammation of the eardrum(s) at Day 5 and Day 14, but we are unsure of this effect due to the small numbers of children in the studies. There were no significant differences between the corticosteroid and placebo groups in terms of resolving fluid in children's middle ears (at 1, 2, and 3 months) and experiencing new episodes of AOM (at 1, 2, 3 months, and 4 and 6 months). Neither study reported a reduction in the duration of overall or specific symptoms, rupture of eardrum(s), the occurrence of middle ear inflammation in the other ear following the current ear infection, or serious complications. Only one study reported the overall side effects identified during the trial (e.g. drowsiness, dry mouth, diaper rash, nervousness). We could not draw any conclusions regarding the effects of corticosteroids for AOM in children. The quality of evidence included in this review was low to very low due to few children included in two small studies. We are uncertain about whether or not corticosteroids are useful in relieving pain from AOM.

10.1002/14651858.CD012289.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3430

cochrane-simplification-train-3430

One completed randomised trial was found. In one subgroup of this trial, 16 patients with symptomatic severe vertebral artery stenosis were randomised to endovascular treatment (eight patients) or medical treatment alone (eight patients). There were no strokes in any arterial territory or deaths from any cause in either group within 30 days of treatment (endovascular group) or 30 days of randomisation (medical group). In the endovascular group, two patients had a posterior circulation transient ischaemic attack at the time of the procedure. In the endovascular group, the mean vessel stenosis at follow up was 47% (range 0% to 80%). Patients were followed up for a mean of 4.5 years in the endovascular group and 4.9 years in the medical group. There were no further vertebrobasilar territory strokes in either group for the duration of follow up. Morbidity and mortality was related to carotid and coronary artery disease in this study. There is currently insufficient evidence to assess the effects of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with or without stenting or primary stenting for vertebral artery stenosis.

This review found results from one arm of a trial only involving a very small number of patients. The results suggest that endovascular treatment can be carried out with a high degree of technical success at the time of treatment but there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the risk benefit ratio favours endovascular intervention over conservative management. Randomised trials need to be designed to determine whether the endovascular treatment is more successful than conservative treatment at reducing the long term risk of stroke or death.

10.1002/14651858.CD000516.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3431

cochrane-simplification-train-3431

The review includes 31 trials with 12,579 participants. Of 24 comparisons made, 6 compared a COC to placebo, 17 different COCs, and 1 compared a COC to an antibiotic. Of nine placebo-controlled trials with data for analysis, all showed COCs reduced acne lesion counts, severity grades and self-assessed acne compared to placebo. A levonorgestrel-COC group had fewer total lesion counts (MD -9.98; 95% CI -16.51 to -3.45), inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, and were more likely to have a clinician assessment of clear or almost clear lesions and participant self-assessment of improved acne lesions. A norethindrone acetate COC had better results for clinician global assessment of no acne to mild acne (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.62). In two combined trials, a norgestimate COC showed reduced total lesion counts (MD-9.32; 95% CI -14.19 to -4.45), reduced inflammatory lesion and comedones counts, and more with clinician assessment of improved acne. For two combined trials of a drospirenone COC, the investigators' assessment of clear or almost clear skin favored the drospirenone group (OR 3.02; 95% CI 1.99 to 4.59). In one trial, the drospirenone-COC group showed greater (more positive) percent changes for total lesion count (MD 29.08; 95% CI 3.13 to 55.03), inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesion counts, and papule and closed comedone counts. A dienogest-COC group had greater percentage decreases in total lesion count (MD -15.30; 95% CI -19.98 to -10.62) and inflammatory lesion count, and more women assessed with overall improvement of facial acne. A CMA-COC group had more 'responders,' those with 50% or greater decrease in facial papules and pustules (OR 2.31; 95% CI 1.50 to 3.55) Differences in the comparative effectiveness of COCs containing varying progestin types and dosages were less clear, and data were limited for any particular comparison. COCs that contained chlormadinone acetate or cyproterone acetate improved acne better than levonorgestrel. A COC with cyproterone acetate showed better acne outcomes than one with desogestrel, but the studies produced conflicting results. Likewise, levonorgestrel showed a slight improvement over desogestrel in acne outcomes, but results were not consistent. A drospirenone COC appeared to be more effective than norgestimate or nomegestrol acetate plus 17β-estradiol but less effective than cyproterone acetate. This update yielded six new trials but no change in conclusions. The six COCs evaluated in placebo-controlled trials are effective in reducing inflammatory and non-inflammatory facial acne lesions. Few important and consistent differences were found between COC types in their effectiveness for treating acne. How COCs compare to alternative acne treatments is unknown since only one trial addressed this issue. The use of standardized methods for assessing acne severity would help in synthesizing results across trials as well as aid in interpretation.

In January 2012, we did a computer search for studies of birth control pills and acne treatment. Outcomes could be the amount of acne, how severe the acne was, and how many women dropped out early due to problems. We wrote to researchers to find other trials. We included randomized trials in any language that compared two types of birth control pills, a pill and a placebo or 'dummy,' or a pill and another acne treatment. The review now includes 31 trials with a total of 12,579 women. Ten studies used dummies. Overall, 24 pairs of treatments or placebos were compared: 6 compared a birth control pill and a placebo, 17 compared different types of birth control pills, and 1 compared a pill and an antibiotic. The six pills studied in trials with placebos worked well to reduce facial acne. When we compared pills with different hormones, we did not see any important and consistent differences. The conclusions did not change when we added trials in this update. Most trials compared two types of pills for acne treatment. Better quality studies are needed to compare one birth control pill with another. Studies should use standard methods for reporting how severe the acne is. How birth control pills compare to other acne treatments like antibiotics is not clear. Since birth control pills improve acne, they can be used to treat women with acne who also want birth control.

10.1002/14651858.CD004425.pub6

cochrane-simplification-train-3432

cochrane-simplification-train-3432

We included three RCTs (124 participants), two of which we assessed as at high risk of bias and one at unclear risk of bias. All studies were hospital-based and recruited participants undergoing superficial parotidectomy. Most participants were diagnosed with benign lesions of the parotid gland. Participants were followed up for more than six months. The studies evaluated the two comparisons shown below: Sternocleidomastoid muscle flap versus no flap Two studies assessed this comparison. Both assessed the effects of the sternocleidomastoid muscle flap procedure on the incidence rate of Frey's syndrome assessed clinically but neither showed a significant difference between groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 1.23; 24 participants and RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.73; 36 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not pool the data due to the high heterogeneity (I² = 87%). One study found that the sternocleidomastoid muscle flap may result in little or no difference in other complications including haematoma (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 50.16; 36 participants; low-certainty evidence), subjective painful or restricted cervical movement (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.05; 36 participants; low-certainty evidence) and scar spread in the cervical region (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.05 to 10.54; 36 participants; low-certainty evidence). Both studies reported the incidence rate of Frey's syndrome assessed by participants, with one reporting no events in either group and the other finding no evidence of a difference (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.26; 36 participants; low-certainty evidence). Acellular dermal matrix versus no graft Only one study assessed this comparison. Use of an acellular dermal matrix graft may result in little or no difference to the incidence rate of Frey's syndrome (assessed clinically) in comparison with the no graft group, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.25; 30 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Acellular dermal matrix may slightly increase the wound infection rate compared with control (RR 17.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 282.67; 64 participants; low-certainty evidence). Acellular dermal matrix may result in little or no difference to the incidence of seromas or sialoceles (RR 2.33, 95% CI 0.66 to 8.23; 64 participants; low-certainty evidence). Acellular dermal matrix may result in little or no difference to the incidence rate of Frey's syndrome (assessed by participants) in comparison with the no graft group (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.04; 64 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence for the effectiveness of graft interposition in preventing Frey's syndrome is of low or very low certainty. The use of acellular dermal matrix may be associated with an increase in the wound infection rate, and little or no difference in the incidence of seromas or sialoceles. Further studies are needed to draw reliable conclusions.

We included three studies with 124 participants in this review, but the quality of these studies was not ideal. All of the participants in the studies had tumours of the parotid glands and were undergoing surgery to part of the glands. The studies assessed two types of grafts, tissue obtained from the sternocleidomastoid muscle and a biomaterial (a collagen framework without cells). Two studies compared a tissue graft obtained from the sternocleidomastoid muscle to no graft. It is not known whether this type of tissue graft can prevent Frey's syndrome because the available evidence is very uncertain. One study compared a biomaterial graft to no graft. This type of graft may result in little or no difference to the incidence rate of Frey's syndrome, but the evidence is very uncertain. It may make the patient's wound slightly more likely to become infected. The evidence in this review is mostly of low or very low certainty, because of the small number of studies on this question and the risk of bias in these studies. The findings must therefore be treated with caution and further studies are needed to draw reliable conclusions. The evidence in this review is up to date to 5 February 2019.

10.1002/14651858.CD012323.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3433

cochrane-simplification-train-3433

We included 59 trials involving 7667 participants. We rated two trials at low risk of bias in all domains (selection, attrition, reporting, blinding and other). We rated 25 trials at high risk in one or more risk-of-bias domains. Compared with sham treatment, PC6 acupoint stimulation significantly reduced the incidence of nausea (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77; 40 trials, 4742 participants), vomiting (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.71; 45 trials, 5147 participants) and the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73; 39 trials, 4622 participants). As heterogeneity among trials was substantial and there were study limitations, we rated the quality of evidence as low. Using trial sequential analysis, the required information size and boundary for benefit were reached for both primary outcomes. PC6 acupoint stimulation was compared with six different types of antiemetic drugs (metoclopramide, cyclizine, prochlorperazine, droperidol. ondansetron and dexamethasone). There was no difference between PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs in the incidence of nausea (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 14 trials, 1332 participants), vomiting (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17; 19 trials, 1708 participants), or the need for rescue antiemetics (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.16; 9 trials, 895 participants). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, due to the study limitations. Using trial sequential analyses, the futility boundary was crossed before the required information size was surpassed for both primary outcomes. Compared to antiemetic drugs, the combination of PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic therapy reduced the incidence of vomiting (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.91; 9 trials, 687 participants) but not nausea (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13; 8 trials, 642 participants). We rated the quality of evidence as very low, due to substantial heterogeneity among trials, study limitations and imprecision. Using trial sequential analysis, none of the boundaries for benefit, harm or futility were crossed for PONV. The need for rescue antiemetic was lower in the combination PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic group than the antiemetic group (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.86; 5 trials, 419 participants). The side effects associated with PC6 acupoint stimulation were minor, transient and self-limiting (e.g. skin irritation, blistering, redness and pain) in 14 trials. Publication bias was not apparent in the contour-enhanced funnel plots. There is low-quality evidence supporting the use of PC6 acupoint stimulation over sham. Compared to the last update in 2009, no further sham comparison trials are needed. We found that there is moderate-quality evidence showing no difference between PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drugs to prevent PONV. Further PC6 acupoint stimulation versus antiemetic trials are futile in showing a significant difference, which is a new finding in this update. There is inconclusive evidence supporting the use of a combined strategy of PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic drug over drug prophylaxis, and further high-quality trials are needed.

We found 59 relevant studies, conducted between 1986 and 2015, involving 7667 participants undergoing elective surgery. Seven of the trials were conducted in 727 children. The PC6 acupoint stimulation varied from invasive techniques, such as traditional acupuncture needles, to noninvasive techniques, such as acupressure wristbands. PC6 acupoint stimulation was compared with six different types of antiemetic drugs (metoclopramide, cyclizine, prochlorperazine, droperidol. ondansetron and dexamethasone). Effects of PC6 acupoint stimulation versus sham on PONV We found a moderate-size effect in children and adults, although there were concerns about study limitations and unexplained variation in the effects. Further studies with sham comparisons are not necessary to confirm this beneficial effect. Effects of PC6 acupoint stimulation versus antiemetic on PONV We found no difference in the incidence of PONV. We rated the quality of this evidence as moderate, due to study limitations. Further studies are unlikely to show a difference. Effects of combining PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetic versus antiemetic on PONV We found a moderate-size effect on postoperative vomiting but not on postoperative nausea. However, there were concerns about study limitations, unexplained variation in effects between studies, and an insufficient number of studies. Further high-quality research on combinations of PC6 acupoint stimulation and antiemetics are needed to reduce uncertainties about this effect on PONV. Overall, the side effects related to PC6 acupoint stimulation were minor, transient and self-limiting (e.g. skin irritation, blistering, redness and pain) in 14 studies. To prevent PONV, the effect of PC6 acupoint stimulation is comparable to antiemetics.

10.1002/14651858.CD003281.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3434

cochrane-simplification-train-3434

We identified 14 eligible studies which randomised a total of 5,500 women. Median follow-up ranged from 18 to 124 months. Eight studies described a satisfactory method of randomisation. Data, based on 1139 estimated deaths in 4620 women available for analysis, show equivalent overall survival rates with a HR of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.09; p, 0.67; no heterogeneity). Preoperative chemotherapy increases breast conservation rates, yet at the associated cost of increased loco regional recurrence rates. However, this rate was not increased as long as surgery remains part of the treatment even after complete tumour regression (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.37; p, 0.25; no heterogeneity. Preoperative chemotherapy was associated with fewer adverse effects. Pathological complete response is associated with better survival than residual disease (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.69; p, < 10-4). This review suggests safe application of preoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of women with early stage breast cancer in order to down-stage surgical requirement, to evaluate chemosensitivity and to facilitate translational research.

This review identified 14 randomised controlled trials involving 5,500 women addressing this question. The analyses revealed no difference in overall survival and disease-free survival for women who received either preoperative or postoperative chemotherapy. Preoperative treatment makes more breast-conserving surgery possible because of shrinkage of the tumour before surgical intervention (relative risk, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.76 to 0.89). However, this also results in a increase of loco-regional recurrence (recurrence in the same area) rate (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.37). Preoperative chemotherapy provides the possibility of monitoring tumour response and making appropriate regimen changes once the tumour appears to be resistant to the primary therapy. Adverse effects, which were reported in only half of the studies, were fewer in women receiving preoperative chemotherapy. Although, postoperative complications, nausea and vomiting, and alopecia were equally distributed, events of cardiotoxicity were less likely (relative risk, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 1.04) in women receiving preoperative chemotherapy. Also, serious infection (analysed in 2799 women) was less likely to occur in women receiving preoperative chemotherapy (relative risk, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.84).

10.1002/14651858.CD005002.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3435

cochrane-simplification-train-3435

Twelve RCTs (comprising 1669 participants) met the eligibility criteria. We judged five studies to have a moderate risk of bias and assessed the remaining seven as having a high risk of bias. It was possible to include SF-36 physical health component scores from five studies in a meta-analysis. Participating in a MDRP was associated with an increase in SF-36 physical health component scores (mean difference (MD) 2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 4.31, P = 0.04). The findings from the narrative analysis suggested that MDRPs with a single domain or outcome focus appeared to be more successful than programmes with multiple aims. In addition, programmes that comprised participants with different types of cancer compared to cancer site-specific programmes were more likely to show positive improvements in physical outcomes. The most effective mode of service delivery appeared to be face-to-face contact supplemented with at least one follow-up telephone call. There was no evidence to indicate that MDRPs which lasted longer than six months improved outcomes beyond the level attained at six months. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that services were more effective if they were delivered by a particular type of health professional. There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of brief, focused MDRPs for cancer survivors. Rigorous and methodologically sound clinical trials that include an economic analysis are required.

We identified 12 studies which were suitable for use in the review. However, each study had some problems in the way that it was carried out. These problems make it difficult to be certain about the usefulness of MDRPs. Overall, the reviewed articles suggest that MDRPs are more likely to help patients cope with their physical needs than their emotional needs. MDRPs which looked at one specific behaviour area, such as diet, physical activity or stress, appeared to be more helpful for patients than programmes which attempted to address several different behaviours. Successful MDRPs usually involved face-to-face contact between a patient and a health professional (usually a nurse or physical therapist) and included at least one follow-up phone call. Programmes which took place over longer time periods (more than six months), or which were delivered by a specific type of health professional, or were delivered to a single cancer site were not more successful than brief, focused MDRPs delivered to mixed groups of cancer patients.

10.1002/14651858.CD007730.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3436

cochrane-simplification-train-3436

IRS versus no IRS Stable malaria (entomological inoculation rate (EIR) > 1): In one RCT in Tanzania IRS reduced re-infection with malaria parasites detected by active surveillance in children following treatment; protective efficacy (PE) 54%. In the same setting, malaria case incidence assessed by passive surveillance was marginally reduced in children aged one to five years; PE 14%, but not in children older than five years (PE -2%). In the IRS group, malaria prevalence was slightly lower but this was not significant (PE 6%), but mean haemoglobin was higher (mean difference 0.85 g/dL). In one CBA trial in Nigeria, IRS showed protection against malaria prevalence during the wet season (PE 26%; 95% CI 20 to 32%) but not in the dry season (PE 6%; 95% CI -4 to 15%). In one ITS in Mozambique, the prevalence was reduced substantially over a period of 7 years (from 60 to 65% prevalence to 4 to 8% prevalence; the weighted PE before-after was 74% (95% CI 72 to 76%). Unstable malaria (EIR < 1): In two RCTs, IRS reduced the incidence rate of all malaria infections;PE 31% in India, and 88% (95% CI 69 to 96%) in Pakistan. By malaria species, IRS also reduced the incidence of P. falciparum (PE 93%, 95% CI 61 to 98% in Pakistan) and P. vivax (PE 79%, 95% CI 45 to 90% in Pakistan); There were similar impacts on malaria prevalence for any infection: PE 76% in Pakistan; PE 28% in India. When looking separately by parasite species, for P. falciparum there was a PE of 92% in Pakistan and 34% in India; forP. vivax there was a PE of 68% in Pakistan and no impact demonstrated in India (PE of -2%). IRS versus Insecticide Treated Nets (ITNs) Stable malaria (EIR > 1): Only one RCT was done in an area of stable transmission (in Tanzania). When comparing parasitological re-infection by active surveillance after treatment in short-term cohorts, ITNs appeared better, but it was likely not to be significant as the unadjusted CIs approached 1 (risk ratio IRS:ITN = 1.22). When the incidence of malaria episodes was measured by passive case detection, no difference was found in children aged one to five years (risk ratio = 0.88, direction in favour of IRS). No difference was found for malaria prevalence or haemoglobin. Unstable malaria (EIR < 1): Two studies; for incidence and prevalence, the malaria rates were higher in the IRS group compared to the ITN group in one study. Malaria incidence was higher in the IRS arm in India (risk ratio IRS:ITN = 1.48) and in South Africa (risk ratio 1.34 but the cluster unadjusted CIs included 1). For malaria prevalence, ITNs appeared to give better protection against any infection compared to IRS in India (risk ratio IRS:ITN = 1.70) and also for both P. falciparum (risk ratio IRS:ITN = 1.78) and P. vivax (risk ratio IRS:ITN = 1.37). Historical and programme documentation has clearly established the impact of IRS. However, the number of high-quality trials are too few to quantify the size of effect in different transmission settings. The evidence from randomized comparisons of IRS versus no IRS confirms that IRS reduces malaria incidence in unstable malaria settings, but randomized trial data from stable malaria settings is very limited. Some limited data suggest that ITN give better protection than IRS in unstable areas, but more trials are needed to compare the effects of ITNs with IRS, as well as to quantify their combined effects. Ideally future trials should try and evaluate the effect of IRS in areas with no previous history of malaria control activities.

Six studies were identified for inclusion (four cluster RCTs, one CBA and one ITS). Four of these studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, one in India and one in Pakistan. IRS reduced malaria transmission in young children by half compared to no IRS in Tanzania (an area where people are regularly exposed to malaria), and protected all age groups in India and Pakistan (where malaria transmission is more unstable and where more than one type of malaria is found). When compared with ITNs, IRS appeared more protective (according to the outcome chosen) in one trial conducted in an area of stable malaria transmission, but ITN seemed to be more protective than IRS in unstable areas. Unfortunately, the level of evidence is very limited and no firm conclusions should be drawn on the basis of this review. In conclusion, although IRS programmes have shown impressive success in malaria reduction throughout the world, there are too few well-run trials to be able to quantify the effects of IRS in areas with different malaria transmission, or to properly compare IRS and ITN.  High-quality and long-duration trials on a large scale, done in areas where there has been little or no mosquito control are still urgently required. New trials should include an IRS arm and an ITN arm, and should also assess the combined effect of ITN and IRS, a very important question in view of malaria elimination.

10.1002/14651858.CD006657.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3437

cochrane-simplification-train-3437

Combined data from two eating disorder prevention programs based on a media literacy and advocacy approach indicate a reduction in the internalisation or acceptance of societal ideals relating to appearance at a 3- to 6-month follow-up (Kusel 1999; Neumark* 2000) [SMD -0.28, -0.51 to -0.05, 95% CI]. There is insufficient evidence to support the effect of five programs designed to address eating attitudes and behaviours and other adolescent issues in the general community or those classified as being at high risk for eating disorder (Buddeberg* 1998; Dalle Grave 2001; Killen 1993; Santonastaso 1999; Zanetti 1999) and insufficient evidence to support the effect of two programs designed to improve self-esteem (O'Dea 2000; Wade 2003). Data from two didactic eating disorder awareness programs could not be pooled for analysis. There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that harm resulted from any of the prevention programs included in the review. The one significant pooled effect in the current review does not allow for any firm conclusions to be made about the impact of prevention programs for eating disorders in children and adolescents, although none of the pooled comparisons indicated evidence of harm. The meta-analysis is in the process of being revised to account for the impact of cluster randomised trials.

Several eating disorder prevention programs have been developed and trialled with children and adolescents. There is currently limited evidence in the published literature to suggest that any particular type of program is effective in preventing eating disorders and there has been concern that some interventions have the potential to cause harm. The aim of this systematic review is to determine whether these interventions are effective in the prevention of eating disorders in children and adolescents. Only one statistically significant result was found in the present meta-analysis - a slight effect of media literacy and advocacy programs in reducing acceptance of societal body image ideals. There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that harm was caused by any of the 12 randomised controlled trials included in the review at short-term follow-up. The meta-analysis is in the process of being revised to account for the impact of cluster randomised trials.

10.1002/14651858.CD002891

cochrane-simplification-train-3438

cochrane-simplification-train-3438

We included one study, with 60 randomized participants, in the review. The study population had a range of ulcer types that were venous arteriolosclerotic and venous/arterial in origin. Study participants had recalcitrant ulcers that had not healed after treatment over a six-month period. Participants allocated to NPWT received continuous negative pressure until they achieved 100% granulation (wound preparation stage). A punch skin-graft transplantation was conducted and the wound then exposed to further NPWT for four days followed by standard care. Participants allocated to the control arm received standard care with dressings and compression until 100% granulation was achieved. These participants also received a punch skin-graft transplant and then further treatment with standard care. All participants were treated as in-patients until healing occurred. There was low quality evidence of a difference in time to healing that favoured the NPWT group: the study reported an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.2, with 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.7 to 6.2. The follow-up period of the study was a minimum of 12 months. There was no evidence of a difference in the total number of ulcers healed (29/30 in each group) over the follow-up period; this finding was also low quality evidence. There was low quality evidence of a difference in time to wound preparation for surgery that favoured NPWT (hazard ratio 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.7). Limited data on adverse events were collected: these provided low quality evidence of no difference in pain scores and Euroqol (EQ-5D) scores at eight weeks after surgery. There is limited rigorous RCT evidence available concerning the clinical effectiveness of NPWT in the treatment of leg ulcers. There is some evidence that the treatment may reduce time to healing as part of a treatment that includes a punch skin graft transplant, however, the applicability of this finding may be limited by the very specific context in which NPWT was evaluated. There is no RCT evidence on the effectiveness of NPWT as a primary treatment for leg ulcers.

After extensive searching up to May 2015 to find all relevant medical studies that might provide evidence about whether NPWT is an effective treatment for leg ulcers, we found only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) that was eligible for this review. (RCTs provide more robust results than most other trial types.) The study was small with 60 participants who had hard-to-heal ulcers. The average age of these participants was 73 years, and 77% of them were women. The study was funded by the manufacturer of the NPWT machine. The study explored the use of NPWT in preparing leg ulcers for a skin graft. In the study, the ulcers were treated with NPWT or with normal (standard) care until the wounds were considered ready to have a skin graft applied. The study's results are not relevant for leg ulcers that are not being prepared for skin grafts. Participants remained in hospitals during treatment and until their wounds healed. There was low evidence from this study that ulcers treated with NPWT healed more quickly than those treated with standard care (dressings and compression). There was also evidence that ulcers treated with NPWT became ready for skin grafting more quickly than those treated with standard care. There were very limited results for other outcomes such as adverse events (harms) and it was not clear how information about adverse effects was collected. Twelve ulcers recurred (broke out again) in the NPWT group and 10 recurred in the standard care group. The evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT in treating leg ulcers is very limited, and at present consists of only one study with 60 participants. This study provided evidence that NPWT may reduce time to healing as part of a treatment that includes a skin graft. At present, no RCTs have investigated the effectiveness of NPWT as a main treatment for leg ulcers. This plain language summary is up-to-date as of May 2015.

10.1002/14651858.CD011354.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3439

cochrane-simplification-train-3439

We included seven studies from the literature search, but only six provided sufficient data for analyses. Included studies were European, cluster RCTs with adult participants seeing their usual doctor (in total 233 general practitioners and 1787 participants). Methodological quality was only moderate as studies had no blinding of healthcare professionals and several studies had a risk of recruitment and attrition bias. Studies were heterogeneous with regard to selection of patient populations and intensity of interventions. Outcomes relating to physical or general health (physical symptoms, quality of life) showed substantial heterogeneity between studies (I2 > 70%) and post hoc analysis suggested that benefit was confined to more intensive interventions; thus we did not calculate a pooled effect. Outcomes relating to mental health showed less heterogeneity and we conducted meta-analyses, which found non-significant overall effect sizes with SMDs for changes at 6 to 24 months follow-up: mental health (3 studies) SMD -0.04 (95% CI -0.18 to 0.10), illness worry (3 studies) SMD 0.09 (95% CI -0.04 to 0.22), depression (4 studies) SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.20) and anxiety (2 studies) SMD -0.07 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.25). Effects on sick leave could not be estimated. Three studies of patient satisfaction with care all showed positive but non-significant effects, and measures were too heterogeneous to allow meta-analysis. Results on healthcare utilisation were inconclusive. We analysed study discontinuation and found that both short term and long term discontinuation occurred more often in patients allocated to the intervention group, RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.46) at 12 to 24 months. Current evidence does not answer the question whether enhanced care delivered by front line primary care professionals has an effect or not on the outcome of patients with functional somatic symptoms. Enhanced care may have an effect when delivered per protocol to well-defined groups of patients with functional disorders, but this needs further investigation. Attention should be paid to difficulties including limited consultation time, lack of skills, the need for a degree of diagnostic openness, and patient resistance towards psychosomatic attributions. There is some indication from this and other reviews that more intensive interventions are more successful in changing patient outcomes.

The review found that the relevant six studies varied in significant ways: how severe the patients’ symptoms were; the form and intensity of the enhanced care offered. These differences made the studies difficult to compare. Many people left the studies before the outcomes could be measured. Given these problems with comparing existing research, it is only possible to say: enhanced care may help people with functional somatic symptoms; more intensive enhanced care may be more effective than very brief interventions. Further research into this topic is needed to test how much and what type of enhanced care could be effective. Future research should take into account barriers that might prevent such treatments benefitting patients. These include: GPs’ lack of time or skills, and their low expectations that enhanced care might help patients; patients’ reluctance to accept non-physical understandings of somatic symptoms.

10.1002/14651858.CD008142.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3440

cochrane-simplification-train-3440

Our searches found no randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised controlled trials that met the eligibility criteria for this review. There is very low quality evidence from one randomised trial involving 79 participants with acute Bell's palsy, but this study was excluded as the outcome assessor was not blinded to treatment allocation and thus did not meet pre-defined eligibility criteria. The trial compared 42 people who received hyperbaric oxygen therapy (2.8 atmospheres for 60 minutes twice daily, five days per week until the facial palsy resolved; maximum 30 'dives') and placebo tablets with 37 people who received placebo hyperbaric oxygen therapy (achieving only a normal partial pressure of oxygen) and prednisone (40 mg twice daily, reducing over eight days). Facial function recovered in more participants treated with hyperbaric oxygen therapy than with prednisone (hyperbaric oxygen therapy, 40/42 (95%); prednisone, 28/37 (76%); risk ratio 1.26, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.53). There were no reported major complications and all participants completed the trial. Very low quality evidence from one trial suggests that hyperbaric oxygen therapy may be an effective treatment for moderate to severe Bell's palsy, but this study was excluded as the outcome assessor was not blinded to treatment allocation. Further randomised controlled trials are needed.

We searched for evidence from randomised controlled trials on hyperbaric oxygen therapy in adults with moderate to severe Bell's palsy. Our searches revealed no trials that met the inclusion criteria for the review. We found very low quality evidence from one trial to suggest that hyperbaric oxygen therapy might be beneficial for moderate to severe Bell's palsy. The trial involved 79 participants and compared hyperbaric oxygen therapy to prednisone, a corticosteroid, which is a proven active treatment. The participants did not know which treatment they were being given. Those treated with hyperbaric oxygen recovered more quickly and recovered normal facial movement more often (95% versus 76%). All participants tolerated the treatment well, and there were no major complications. The quality of evidence from this trial was very low because the assessors of facial function were aware of which treatment each participant had been given, which introduces a high risk of bias. There is therefore no high quality evidence on which to base conclusions about the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in Bell's palsy.

10.1002/14651858.CD007288.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3441

cochrane-simplification-train-3441

We included 41 trials (8130 participants), 30 investigated acarbose, seven miglitol, one trial voglibose and three trials compared different alpha-glucosidase inhibitors. Study duration was 24 weeks in most cases and only two studies lasted amply longer than one year. We found only few data on mortality, morbidity and quality of life. Acarbose had a clear effect on glycemic control compared to placebo: glycated haemoglobin -0.8% (95% confidence interval -0.9 to -0.7), fasting blood glucose -1.1 mmol/L (95% confidence interval -1.4 to -0.9), post-load blood glucose -2.3 mmol/L (95% confidence interval -2.7 to -1.9). The effect on glycated haemoglobin by acarbose was not dose-dependent. We found a decreasing effect on post-load insulin and no clinically relevant effects on lipids or body weight. Adverse effects were mostly of gastro-intestinal origin and dose dependent. Compared to sulphonylurea, acarbose decreased fasting and post-load insulin levels by -24.8 pmol/L (95% confidence interval -43.3 to -6.3) and -133.2 pmol/L (95% confidence interval -184.5 to -81.8) respectively and acarbose caused more adverse effects. It remains unclear whether alpha-glucosidase inhibitors influence mortality or morbidity in patients with type 2 diabetes. Conversely, they have a significant effect on glycemic control and insulin levels, but no statistically significant effect on lipids and body weight. These effects are less sure when alpha-glucosidase inhibitors are used for a longer duration. Acarbose dosages higher than 50 mg TID offer no additional effect on glycated hemoglobin but more adverse effects instead. Compared to sulphonylurea, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors lower fasting and post-load insulin levels and have an inferior profile regarding glycemic control and adverse effects.

In this review we present data from meta-analyses that show (among other things) a decrease in glycated haemoglobin, fasting and post-load blood glucose and post-load insulin. But we found no evidence for an effect on mortality or morbidity. We found clues that with higher dosages the effect on glycated haemoglobin, in contrast to post-load blood glucose, remains the same. This might be because a lower compliance due to increasing side-effects.

10.1002/14651858.CD003639.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3442

cochrane-simplification-train-3442

The previous version of this review included no trials. We identified two trials that could be included from the 2015 and 2017 searches. They randomised 30 in- and outpatients with schizophrenia in the USA and Germany. Overall, the risk of bias was unclear, mainly due to poor reporting: allocation concealment was not described; generation of the sequence was not explicit; studies were not clearly blinded; and outcome data were not fully reported. Findings were sparse. One study reported on the primary outcomes and found that significantly more participants allocated to procyclidine (anticholinergic) had not improved to a clinically important extent compared with those allocated to isocarboxazid (MAO-inhibitor) after 40 weeks' treatment (1 RCT, n = 20; RR 4.20, 95% CI 1.40 to 12.58; very low quality evidence); that there was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of any adverse effects (1 RCT, n = 20; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.32; very low quality evidence); or acceptability of treatment (measured by participants leaving the study early) (1 RCT, n = 20; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.32; very low quality evidence). The other trial compared anticholinergic withdrawal with anticholinergic continuation and found no evidence of a difference in the incidence of acceptability of treatment (measured by participants leaving the study early) (1 RCT, n = 10; RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 42.52; very low quality evidence). No trials reported on social confidence, social inclusion, social networks, or personalised quality of life — outcomes designated important to patients. No studies comparing either i. anticholinergics with placebo or no treatment, or ii. studies of anticholinergic withdrawal, were found that reported on the primary outcome 'no clinically important improvement in TD symptoms and adverse events'. Based on currently available evidence, no confident statement can be made about the effectiveness of anticholinergics to treat people with antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. The same applies for the withdrawal of such medications. Whether the withdrawal of anticholinergics may benefit people with antipsychotic-induced TD should be evaluated in a parallel-group, placebo-controlled randomised trial, with adequate sample size and at least 6 weeks of follow-up.

. The review includes two small randomised studies with a total of 30 people with schizophrenia who had also developed antipsychotic-induced tardive dyskinesia. Participants in one study received either the anticholinergic drug procyclidine or isocarboxacid, an antidepressant drug. One participant group in the other study was withdrawn from the anticholinergic drug biperiden whereas the other group of participants continued taking biperiden. . There were sparse findings from two small and poorly reported trials. It is uncertain whether giving anticholinergic drugs is helpful in the treatment of tardive dyskinesia for people who are taking antipsychotic medication. It is also uncertain whether the withdrawal of anticholinergic medication improves the symptoms of tardive dyskinesia. . Available evidence is very low or low quality, limited, and small scale. It is not possible to recommend these drugs or the withdrawal of these drugs as a treatment for tardive dyskinesia. To fully investigate whether the withdrawal of anticholinergic drugs has any positive effects for people with tardive dyskinesia, we need more high quality research data. This plain language summary was adapted by the review authors from a summary originally written by Ben Gray, Senior Peer Researcher, McPin Foundation (mcpin.org).

10.1002/14651858.CD000204.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3443

cochrane-simplification-train-3443

We identified five trials. There were 1633 participants in the narrow excision margin group and 1664 in the wide excision margin group. Narrow margin definition ranged from 1 to 2 cm; wide margins ranged from 3 to 5 cm. Median follow-up ranged from 5 to 16 years. This systematic review summarises the evidence regarding width of excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma. None of the five published trials, nor our meta-analysis, showed a statistically significant difference in overall survival between narrow or wide excision. The summary estimate for overall survival favoured wide excision by a small degree [Hazard Ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.15; P = 0.40], but the result was not significantly different. This result is compatible with both a 5% relative reduction in overall mortality favouring narrower excision and a 15% relative reduction in overall mortality favouring wider excision. Therefore, a small (but potentially important) difference in overall survival between wide and narrow excision margins cannot be confidently ruled out. The summary estimate for recurrence free survival favoured wide excision [Hazard Ratio 1.13; P = 0.06; 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.28] but again the result did not reach statistical significance (P < 0.05 level). Current randomised trial evidence is insufficient to address optimal excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma.

We found five published randomised trials, none of which showed a statistically significant difference in overall survival for patients who had either narrow or wide removal of the melanoma and surrounding tissue.  Similarly, our meta-analysis showed there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the two groups treated with either narrow or wide excision. The summary estimate for overall survival favoured wide excision by a small degree, but the result was not significantly different. This result is compatible with both a 5% relative reduction in overall mortality favouring narrower excision and a 15% relative reduction in overall mortality favouring wider excision. Current randomised trial evidence is insufficient to address optimal excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma.

10.1002/14651858.CD004835.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3444

cochrane-simplification-train-3444

We included nine RCTs involving 407 adults with asthma in this review; no studies included adolescents under 18. Study size ranged from 10 to 94 (median 40), and mean age ranged from 39 to 53. Study populations generally had persistent asthma, but severity and diagnostic measures varied. Three studies recruited participants with psychological symptomatology, although with different criteria. Interventions ranged from 4 to 15 sessions, and primary measurements were taken at a mean of 3 months (range 1.2 to 12 months). Participants given CBT had improved scores on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) (MD 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.93; participants = 214; studies = 6; I2 = 53%) and on measures of asthma control (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.76 to -0.20; participants = 95; studies = 3; I2 = 68%) compared to people getting usual care. The AQLQ effect appeared to be sustained up to a year after treatment, but due to its low quality this evidence must be interpreted with caution. As asthma exacerbations requiring at least a course of oral steroids were not consistently reported, we could not perform a meta-analysis. Anxiety scores were difficult to pool but showed a benefit of CBT compared with usual care (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.03), although this depended on the analysis used. The confidence intervals for the effect on depression scales included no difference between CBT and usual care when measured as change from baseline (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.05) or endpoint scores (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.05); the same was true for medication adherence (MD -1.40, 95% CI -2.94 to 0.14; participants = 23; studies = 1; I2 = 0%). Subgroup analyses conducted on the AQLQ outcome did not suggest a clear difference between individual and group CBT, baseline psychological status, or CBT model. The small number of studies and the variation between their designs, populations, and other intervention characteristics limited the conclusions that could be drawn about these possibly moderating factors. The inability to blind participants and investigators to group allocation introduced significant potential bias, and overall we had low confidence in the evidence. For adults with persistent asthma, CBT may improve quality of life, asthma control, and anxiety levels compared with usual care. Risks of bias, imprecision of effects, and inconsistency between results reduced our confidence in the results to low, and evidence was lacking regarding the effect of CBT on asthma exacerbations, unscheduled contacts, depression, and medication adherence. There was much variation between studies in how CBT was delivered and what constituted usual care, meaning the most optimal method of CBT delivery, format, and target population requires further investigation. There is currently no evidence for the use of CBT in adolescents with asthma.

The evidence reviewed is current to August 2016. We included nine studies with a total of 407 participants in the review. All of the participants had asthma. In three of the nine studies, the participants also had a diagnosis of anxiety or depression, or both. The CBT was given either individually or in a group and ranged from four to 15 sessions. Participants given CBT had improved scores on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and on measures of asthma control compared to participants who did not receive CBT. The studies generally did not report whether CBT reduced the likelihood of people needing oral steroids for an asthma attack. The benefit on AQLQ score was sustained up to a year after receiving CBT. Participants given CBT also had better anxiety scores compared to those given usual care. Participants given CBT did not have clearly improved depression scale scores or medication adherence. The overall quality of evidence presented is low due to the small number of studies included in the review, the differences in the design of the studies and in how the CBT was conducted, and because the participants knew to which treatment group (CBT or no CBT) they had been assigned.

10.1002/14651858.CD011818.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3445

cochrane-simplification-train-3445

Six trials with 3847 participants met our inclusion criteria. Trials were conducted in areas of low malaria endemicity (three trials), and moderate to high endemicity (three trials). Four trials were in areas of seasonal malaria transmission. Iron was given to all children in two trials, and evaluated in a factorial design in a further two trials. IPT for children with anaemia probably has little or no effect on the proportion anaemic at 12 weeks follow-up (four trials, 2237 participants, (moderate quality evidence). IPT in anaemic children probably increases the mean change in haemoglobin levels from baseline to follow-up at 12 weeks on average by 0.32 g/dL (MD 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.45; four trials, 1672 participants, moderate quality evidence); and may improve haemoglobin levels at 12 weeks (MD 0.35, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.64; four trials, 1672 participants, low quality evidence). For both of these outcomes, subgroup analysis did not demonstrate a difference between children receiving iron and those that did not. IPT for children with anaemia probably has little or no effect on mortality or hospital admissions at six months (three trials, 3160 participants moderate quality evidence). Subgroup analysis did not show a difference between those children receiving iron supplements and those that did not. Trials did show a small effect on average haemoglobin levels but this did not appear to translate into an effect on mortality and hospital admissions. Three of the six trials were conducted in low endemicity areas where transmission is low and thus any protective effect is likely to be modest.

We included six trials in this review, with a total number of 3847 participants. In all the trials, one group received IPT and the control group received placebo. Three trials were done in low malaria endemicity areas and the other three in high endemicity areas. In some trials, iron supplements were also given to children, which is also a treatment for anaemia, and we took this into consideration when analysing the data. Our results did not find that the number of children who died or were admitted to hospital was lower in the group receiving IPT, irrespective of whether they received iron (moderate quality evidence); and there was no difference in the number of children with anaemia at the end of follow-up (moderate quality evidence). Average haemoglobin levels were higher in the IPT group compared to the placebo group, but the effect was modest (low quality evidence). Although our results show that there are small benefits in haemoglobin levels when treating anaemic children with IPT, we did not detect an effect on death or hospital admissions. However, three of the six included trials were conducted in low endemicity areas where malaria transmission is low and thus any protective effect is likely to be modest.

10.1002/14651858.CD010767.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3446

cochrane-simplification-train-3446

We included 28 trials, encompassing 5939 randomized patients. The atypical antibiotic was administered as monotherapy in all but three studies. Only one study assessed a beta-lactam combined with a macrolide compared to the same beta-lactam. There was no difference in mortality between the atypical arm and the non-atypical arm (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.55), RR < 1 favors the atypical arm. The atypical arm showed an insignificant trend toward clinical success and a significant advantage to bacteriological eradication, which disappeared when evaluating methodologically high quality studies alone. Clinical success for the atypical arm was significantly higher for Legionella pneumophilae (L. pneumophilae) and non-significantly lower for pneumococcal pneumonia. There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of (total) adverse events, or those requiring discontinuation of treatment. However, gastrointestinal events were less common in the atypical arm (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92). Although the trials assessed different antibiotics, no significant heterogeneity was detected in the analyses. No benefit of survival or clinical efficacy was shown with empirical atypical coverage in hospitalized patients with CAP. This conclusion relates mostly to the comparison of quinolone monotherapy to beta-lactams. Further trials, comparing beta-lactam monotherapy to the same combined with a macrolide, should be performed.

This Cochrane review looked at trials comparing antibiotic regimens with atypical coverage to those without, limited to hospitalized adults with CAP. We included 28 trials, involving 5939 patients. For the regimens tested, no advantage was found for regimens covering atypical bacteria in the major outcomes tested - mortality and clinical efficacy. There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of total adverse events, or those requiring discontinuation of treatment. However, gastrointestinal events were less common in the atypical arm. There are limitations to this review in that a single study compared the addition of the atypical antibiotic to a typical antibiotic, the major question in clinical practice; most compared a single atypical antibiotic to a single typical antibiotic. Seventeen of the 27 trials were open label, 21 of the 27 studies were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies of which all but one was conducted by the manufacturer of the atypical antibiotic.

10.1002/14651858.CD004418.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3447

cochrane-simplification-train-3447

Nine small trials involving 219 participants were included. Two trials compared HBOT versus sham therapy on acute closed soft tissue injuries (ankle sprain and medial collateral knee ligament injury respectively). The other seven trials examined the effect of HBOT on DOMS following eccentric exercise in unconditioned volunteers. All 32 participants of the ankle sprain trial returned to their normal activities. There were no significant differences between the two groups in time to recovery, functional outcomes, pain, or swelling. There was no difference between the two groups in knee function scores in the second acute injury trial; however, intention-to-treat analysis was not possible for this trial. Pooling of data from the seven DOMS trials showed significantly and consistently higher pain at 48 and 72 hours in the HBOT group (mean difference in pain score at 48 hours [0 to 10 worst pain] 0.88, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.67, P = 0.03) in trials where HBOT was started immediately. There were no differences between the two groups in longer-term pain scores or in any measures of swelling or muscle strength. No trial reported complications of HBOT but careful selection of participants was evident in most trials. There was insufficient evidence from comparisons tested within randomised controlled trials to establish the effects of HBOT on ankle sprain or acute knee ligament injury, or on experimentally induced DOMS. There was some evidence that HBOT may increase interim pain in DOMS. Any future use of HBOT for these injuries would need to have been preceded by carefully conducted randomised controlled trials which have demonstrated effectiveness.

Our review included nine small trials, involving a total of 219 participants. Two trials compared HBOT versus sham therapy on ankle sprain and knee sprain respectively. Neither trial provided sufficient evidence to determine if HBOT helped people with these injuries. The other seven trials examined the effect of HBOT on muscle injury following unaccustomed exercise. There was no evidence that HBOT helped people with muscle injury following unaccustomed exercise, but some evidence that people given HBOT had slightly more pain. Further research on HBOT is not a high priority given the variety of other treatment interventions available.

10.1002/14651858.CD004713.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3448

cochrane-simplification-train-3448

Nine trials were included in the first published version of this review, and nine further trials have been included in four updates. The included studies cover a wide diversity of people, settings and types of influenza vaccination, and we pooled data from the studies that employed similar vaccines. Protective effects of inactivated influenza vaccine during the influenza season A single parallel-group trial, involving 696 children, was able to assess the protective effects of influenza vaccination. There was no significant reduction in the number, duration or severity of influenza-related asthma exacerbations. There was no difference in the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) although children who had been vaccinated had better symptom scores during influenza-positive weeks. Two parallel-group trials in adults did not contribute data to these outcomes due to very low levels of confirmed influenza infection. Adverse effects of inactivated influenza vaccine in the first two weeks following vaccination Two cross-over trials involving 1526 adults and 712 children (over three years old) with asthma compared inactivated trivalent split-virus influenza vaccine with a placebo injection. These trials excluded any clinically important increase in asthma exacerbations in the two weeks following influenza vaccination (risk difference 0.014; 95% confidence interval -0.010 to 0.037). However, there was significant heterogeneity between the findings of two trials involving 1104 adults in terms of asthma exacerbations in the first three days after vaccination with split-virus or surface-antigen inactivated vaccines. There was no significant difference in measures of healthcare utilisation, days off school/symptom-free days, mean lung function or medication usage. Effects of live attenuated (intranasal) influenza vaccination There were no significant differences found in exacerbations or measures of lung function following live attenuated cold recombinant vaccine versus placebo in two small studies on 17 adults and 48 children. There were no significant differences in asthma exacerbations found for the comparison live attenuated vaccine (intranasal) versus trivalent inactivated vaccine (intramuscular) in one study on 2229 children (over six years of age). Uncertainty remains about the degree of protection that vaccination affords against asthma exacerbations that are related to influenza infection. Evidence from more recently published randomised trials of inactivated split-virus influenza vaccination indicates that there is no significant increase in asthma exacerbations immediately after vaccination in adults or children over three years of age. We were unable to address concerns regarding possible increased wheezing and hospital admissions in infants given live intranasal vaccination.

One trial in 696 children assessed the benefits of injecting inactivated influenza vaccine (inactivated virus vaccines are the type currently used in the US and UK and cannot cause flu). There were no significant differences in the number of people experiencing an asthma attack (worsening of symptoms); however, there were better symptom scores (people reporting fewer asthma symptoms) in weeks in which children had a positive test for influenza, in those who had received the jab compared to those who did not. Two trials involved 1526 adults and 712 children who were given inactivated influenza vaccination, examined the harmful effects caused immediately after injection. These studies ruled out the likelihood of any more than four out of 100 people having a resultant asthma attack in the first two weeks after getting their flu jab. There was not enough information to compare different vaccination types.

10.1002/14651858.CD000364.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3449

cochrane-simplification-train-3449

After initially screening 920 titles, 15 full-text articles were closely examined by two authors. We identified four cohort studies that met our inclusion criteria for data extraction, coding, and potential meta-analysis. Using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias assessments, all observational studies had cohorts that were representative of average (treated and untreated) HIV-infected children with Kaposi sarcoma. For all outcomes of interest, no study adjusted for any other potential confounders. Two of four observational studies either explicitly described complete follow up of the study participants and/or described the characteristics of the participants lost to follow up. The use of ART together with a chemotherapeutic regimen versus ART alone appears to increase the likelihood of KS remission in HIV-infected children diagnosed with KS, although data are sparse and not adequately adjusted for staging of disease and comorbidities. Additionally, though data are sparse, the use of ART together with a chemotherapeutic regimen versus chemotherapy alone in some analyses appears to increase the likelihood of KS remission and reduce the risk of death in HIV-infected children diagnosed with KS. In this analysis, we found that the quality of evidence was very low due to small sample sizes and a paucity of paediatric literature. Data describing the efficacy of different treatment options for pediatric KS, to include chemotherapy and ART, are sparse. However, the use of ART together with a chemotherapy regimen may be superior to the use of ART alone or of chemotherapy alone.

We found four observational studies that examined this question. Overall, we found that, though data are sparse and not adequately statistically adjusted, ART and chemotherapy together compared to chemotherapy alone and ART and chemotherapy compared to ART alone increases the likelihood of KS remission and reduces the risk of death in HIV-infected children diagnosed with KS. The quality of this evidence is, however, weak. Future clinical trials of KS treatment options in HIV-infected children are needed.

10.1002/14651858.CD009826.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3450

cochrane-simplification-train-3450

The search identified 61 reports but only two studies (total n=137) met the inclusion criteria. Both compared art therapy plus standard care with standard care alone. More people completed the therapy if allocated to the art therapy group compared with standard care in the short (n=90, 1 RCT, RR 0.97 CI 0.41 to 2.29), medium (n=47, 1 RCT, RR 0.34 CI 0.15 to 0.80) and long term (n=47, 1 RCT, RR 0.96 CI 0.57 to 1.60). Data from one mental state measure (SANS) showed a small but significant difference favouring the art-therapy group (n=73, 1 RCT, WMD -2.3 CI -4.10 to -0.5). In the short term, a measure of social functioning (SFS) showed no clear difference between groups in endpoint scores (n=70, 1 RCT, WMD 7.20 CI -2.53 to 16.93) and quality of life, as measured by the PerQoL, did not indicate effects of art therapy (n=74, 1 RCT, WMD 0.1 CI -2.7 to 0.47). Randomised studies are possible in this field. Further evaluation of the use of art therapy for serious mental illnesses is needed as its benefits or harms remain unclear.

Unfortunately we only found two randomised controlled trials that studied the use of art therapy for people with schizophrenia. Both studies did not include enough participants to make the results meaningful and we were unable to draw clear conclusions regarding the benefits or harms of art therapy from these studies. More research is needed to determine the value of art therapy in this population.

10.1002/14651858.CD003728.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3451

cochrane-simplification-train-3451

For this second updated version we identified only one small trial reporting grade 4 toxicity results, without disease-free or overall survival data with a median follow-up of 16 months. From the first updated version, we identified three trials that were ongoing, and remain so in 2016. Four trials including 401 women with evaluable results with early cervical cancer were included in the meta-analyses. The median follow-up period in these trials ranged from 29 to 42 months. All women had undergone surgery first. Three trials compared chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone; and one trial compared chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone. It was not possible to perform subgroup analyses by stage or tumour size. Compared with adjuvant radiotherapy, chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy significantly reduced the risk of death (two trials, 297 women; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36 to 0.87) and disease progression (two trials, 297 women; HR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74), with no heterogeneity between trials (I² = 0% for both meta-analyses). Acute grade 4 toxicity occurred significantly more frequently in the chemotherapy plus radiotherapy group than in the radiotherapy group (three trials, 321 women; risk ratio (RR) 6.26, 95% CI 2.50 to 15.67). We considered the evidence for all three outcomes to be of a moderate quality, using the GRADE approach due to small numbers and limited follow-up in the included studies. In addition, it was not possible to separate data for bulky early stage disease. In the one small trial that compared adjuvant chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy with adjuvant radiotherapy alone there was no difference in disease recurrence between the groups (one trial, 71 women; HR = 1.34; 95% CI 0.24 to 7.66) and overall survival was not reported. We considered this evidence to be of a low quality. No trials compared adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy with no adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery for early cervical cancer with risk factors for recurrence. The addition of platinum-based chemotherapy to adjuvant radiotherapy (chemoradiation) may improve survival in women with early stage cervical cancer (IA2-IIA) and risk factors for recurrence. Adjuvant chemoradiation is associated with an increased risk of severe acute toxicity, although it is not clear whether this toxicity is significant in the long term due to a lack of long-term data. This evidence is limited by the small numbers and low to moderate methodological quality of the included studies. We await the results of three ongoing trials, which are likely to have an important impact on our confidence in this evidence.

In this review, we analysed data from four small trials of unclear quality. It was not possible to separate data of bulky early stage disease (stage IB2 and IIA lesions greater than 4 cm) from the overall results. We found limited evidence to suggest that the addition of cisplatin chemotherapy to radiotherapy prolongs survival (time to death) and delays progression of the cancer when given after surgery to women with cervical cancer stage IA2 to IIA with risk factors for recurrence. The combined therapy was associated with more severe side effects than radiotherapy alone. This evidence is limited by the small numbers and moderate quality methodological quality of included studies. ?We conclude that it seems appropriate to offer these women chemotherapy plus radiotherapy after surgery, however, more evidence regarding the relative benefits and risks is needed; this will hopefully be provided by the results of three ongoing trials.

10.1002/14651858.CD005342.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3452

cochrane-simplification-train-3452

Seventeen trials (1811 participants), of poor to moderate quality, were included. There were more treatment failures with ORT (RD 4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1 to 7, random-effects model; 1811 participants, 18 trials; NNT = 25). Six deaths occurred in the IVT group and two in the ORT groups (4 trials). There were no significant differences in weight gain (369 participants, 6 trials), hyponatremia (248 participants, 2 trials) or hypernatremia (1062 participants, 10 trials), duration of diarrhea (960 participants, 8 trials), or total fluid intake at six hours (985 participants, 8 trials) and 24 hours (835 participants, 7 trials). Shorter hospital stays were reported for the ORT group (WMD -1.20 days, 95% CI -2.38 to -0.02 days; 526 participants, 6 trials). Phlebitis occurred more often in the IVT group (NNT 50, 95% CI 25 to 100) and paralytic ileus more often in the ORT group (NNT 33, 95% CI 20 to 100, fixed-effect model), but there was no significant difference between ORT using the low osmolarity solutions recommended by the World Health Organization and IVT (729 participants, 6 trials). Although no clinically important differences between ORT and IVT, the ORT group did have a higher risk of paralytic ileus, and the IVT group was exposed to risks of intravenous therapy. For every 25 children (95% CI 14 to 100) treated with ORT one would fail and require IVT.

The review of 17 trials (some funded by drug companies) found that the trials were not of high quality; however the evidence suggested that there are no clinically important differences between giving fluids orally or intravenously. For every 25 children treated with fluids given orally, one child would fail and require intravenous rehydration. Further, the results for low osmolarity solutions, the currently recommended treatment by the World Health Organization, showed a lower failure rate for oral rehydration that was not significantly different from that of intravenous rehydration. Oral rehydration should be the first line of treatment in children with mild to moderate dehydration with intravenous therapy being used if the oral route fails. The evidence showed that there may be a higher risk of paralytic ileus with oral rehydration while intravenous therapy carries the risk of phlebitis (ie inflammation of the veins).

10.1002/14651858.CD004390.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3453

cochrane-simplification-train-3453

In 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. There 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.

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. Tizanidine did not produce significantly more benefit than carbamazepine according to low-quality evidence. The reporting of the tocainide trial did not allow us to assess whether the drug helped the pain of trigeminal neuralgia, but studies that were not part of this review suggest that this treatment can have serious harmful effects on the blood. Side effects of pimozide were very common but there was low-quality evidence that it was more effective than carbamazepine. In a fourth trial there was low-quality evidence that proparacaine hydrochloride eye drops did not show any significant benefit. There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to show significant benefit from non-antiepileptic drugs in trigeminal neuralgia. Further well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to establish whether non-antiepileptic drugs are beneficial in trigeminal neuralgia. The searches for the review are up to date to May 2013.

10.1002/14651858.CD004029.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3454

cochrane-simplification-train-3454

We found 13 eligible systematic reviews relevant to this overview that contained a total of 17 relevant RCTs. One review reported the results of a network meta-analysis and so presented information on indirect, as well as direct, treatment effects. Collectively the reviews reported findings for 11 different comparisons supported by direct data and 26 comparisons supported by indirect data only. Only four comparisons informed by direct data found evidence of a difference in wound healing between dressing types, but the evidence was assessed as being of low or very low quality (in one case data could not be located and checked). There was also no robust evidence of a difference between dressing types for any secondary outcomes assessed. There is currently no robust evidence for differences between wound dressings for any outcome in foot ulcers in people with diabetes (treated in any setting). Practitioners may want to consider the unit cost of dressings, their management properties and patient preference when choosing dressings.

This overview drew together and summarised evidence from 13 systematic reviews that contained 17 relevant randomised controlled trials (the best type of study for this type of question) published up to 2013. Collectively, these trials compared 10 different types of wound dressings against each other, making a total of 37 separate comparisons. The different ways in which dressing types were compared made it difficult to combine and analyse the results. Only four of the comparisons informed by direct data found evidence of a difference in ulcer healing between dressings, but these results were classed as low quality evidence. There was no clear evidence that any of the 'advanced' wound dressings types were any better than basic wound contact dressings for healing foot ulcers. The overview findings were restricted by the small amount of information available (a limited number of trials involving small numbers of participants). Until there is a clear answer about which type of dressing performs best for healing foot ulcers in people with diabetes, other factors, such as clinical management of the wound, cost, and patient preference and comfort, should influence the choice of dressing. This plain language summary is up-to-date as of April 2015.

10.1002/14651858.CD010471.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3455

cochrane-simplification-train-3455

Twenty-nine studies met the criteria for detailed scrutiny. However, none of these met the pre-determined criteria for comparative groups and none included comparisons between randomly allocated groups of pregnant women. While there is no doubt that penicillin is effective in the treatment of syphilis in pregnancy and the prevention of congenital syphilis, uncertainty remains about what are the optimal treatment regimens. Further studies are needed to evaluate treatment failure cases with currently recommended regimens and this should include an assessment of the role of HIV infection in cases of prenatal syphilis treatment failure. The effectiveness of various antibiotic regimens for the treatment of primary and secondary syphilis in pregnant women need to be assessed using randomised controlled trials which compare them with existing recommendations. This should include treatment with oral antibiotics which could be particularly relevant in resource-poor countries where the availability of safe needles and syringes cannot be guaranteed.

Syphilis is a potentially fatal, sexually transmitted disease that passes from a pregnant woman to her unborn baby. If the woman is untreated, the fetus might be aborted or her baby may be born with the disease, suffer permanent disability and be disfigured. The effectiveness of penicillin in curing infection with syphilis in pregnant women and preventing the baby being born with congenital syphilis was established soon after its introduction in the 1940s and before the widespread use of randomised controlled trials. Although rare in developed countries, the incidence of syphilis is high and increasing in many developing countries, particularly where HIV/AIDS is common. The review of trials found no trials comparing the effectiveness of different doses of penicillin or comparing penicillin with other antibiotics. More research is needed to find the best dosage and duration of treatment.

10.1002/14651858.CD001143

cochrane-simplification-train-3456

cochrane-simplification-train-3456

We included in the review two studies with a total of 30 randomly assigned participants. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low as the result of study limitations, small numbers of events, and small sample sizes, with imprecision in the confidence interval (CI). We were not able to perform meta-analysis because of heterogeneity related to the different interventions evaluated between included studies. Very low-quality evidence from one trial (20 participants) comparing effects of rivastigmine plus rehabilitation versus rehabilitation on overall USN at discharge showed the following: Barrage (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.18 to 0.78); Letter Cancellation (MD 10.60, 95% CI 2.07 to 19.13); Sentence Reading (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.69 to 1.09), and the Wundt-Jastrow Area Illusion Test (MD -4.40, 95% CI -8.28 to -0.52); no statistical significance was observed for the same outcomes at 30 days' follow-up. In another trial (10 participants), study authors showed statistically significant reduction in omissions in the three cancellation tasks under transdermal nicotine treatment (mean number of omissions 2.93 ± 0.5) compared with both baseline (4.95 ± 0.8) and placebo (5.14 ± 0.9) (main effect of treatment condition: F (2.23) = 11.06; P value < 0.0001). One major adverse event occurred in the transdermal nicotine treatment group, and treatment was discontinued in the affected participant. None of the included trials reported data on several of the prespecified outcomes (falls, balance, depression or anxiety, poststroke fatigue, and quality of life). The quality of the evidence from available RCTs was very low. The effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for USN after stroke are therefore uncertain. Additional large RCTs are needed to evaluate these treatments.

Adults over 18 years of age, regardless of gender and ethnicity, with USN after stroke diagnosis measured by clinical examination or radiographically by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, regardless of whether they were evaluated by any paper-and-pencil tests. We considered including people diagnosed with any type of stroke (ie, ischemic or hemorrhagic) from the acute phase (the first 24 to 72 hours) until one year after the stroke. We identified two studies involving 30 participants up to April 2015. We are uncertain as to whether comparison of different pharmacological interventions (rivastigmine, transdermal nicotine)showed an important effect on (1) the ability of people to recognize their paralyzed limb, and (2) independence in daily life functions after stroke, because results were imprecise and included studies did not report most of the predefined outcomes (ie, falls, balance, depression or anxiety, poststroke fatigue, and quality of life). We considered the quality of included studies to be reasonable. Given the small sample size and methodological limitations (participants were assigned in a successive manner in one study), no conclusions can be drawn regarding the effectiveness of pharmacological medications in USN after stroke. The quality of the evidence obtained from available randomized controlled trials was very low. The effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for USN after stroke are therefore uncertain. Additional large randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate these treatments.

10.1002/14651858.CD010882.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3457

cochrane-simplification-train-3457

Thirty five studies have been analyzed on the treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy, describing 25 different comparisons. Surgery Laparoscopic salpingostomy is significantly less successful than the open surgical approach in the elimination of tubal ectopic pregnancy (2 RCTs, n = 165, OR 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.86) due to a significant higher persistent trophoblast rate in laparoscopic surgery (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.1 to 11). However, the laparoscopic approach is significantly less costly than open surgery (P = 0.03). Long term follow up (n = 127) shows no evidence of a difference in intra uterine pregnancy rate (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.5) but there is a non significant tendency to a lower repeat ectopic pregnancy rate (OR 0.47, 95% 0.15 to 1.5). Medical treatment Systemic methotrexate in a fixed multiple dose intramuscular regimen has a non significant tendency to a higher treatment success than laparoscopic salpingostomy (1 RCT, n = 100, OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.6). No significant differences are found in long term follow up (n=74): intra uterine pregnancy (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.1) and repeat ectopic pregnancy (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.19 to 4.1). Expectant management Expectant management is significantly less successful than prostaglandin therapy (1 RCT, n = 23, OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39). In the surgical treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy laparoscopic surgery is a cost effective treatment. An alternative non surgical treatment option in selected patients is medical treatment with systemic methotrexate. Expectant management can not be adequately evaluated yet.

This review of 35 randomised controlled trials found that laparoscopic surgery is feasible and less expensive than open surgery in the treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy. In selected patients, non-surgical treatment options can be used. Medical treatment with systemic methotrexate is an option for women with tubal ectopic pregnancy with no signs of bleeding whose pregnancy hormone blood levels are relatively low. An evaluation of expectant management of tubal ectopic pregnancy cannot be adequately made yet.

10.1002/14651858.CD000324.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3458

cochrane-simplification-train-3458

Five studies compared low versus high protein intake. Improved weight gain and higher nitrogen accretion were demonstrated in infants receiving formula with higher protein content while other nutrients were kept constant. No significant differences were seen in rates of necrotizing enterocolitis, sepsis, or diarrhea. One study compared high versus very high protein intake during and after an initial hospital stay. Very high protein intake promoted improved gain in length at term, but differences did not remain significant at 12 weeks corrected age. Three of the 24 infants receiving very high protein intake developed uremia. A post-facto analysis revealed further improvement in all growth parameters in infants receiving formula with higher protein content. No significant difference in the concentration of plasma phenylalanine was noted between high and low protein intake groups. However, one study (Goldman 1969) documented a significantly increased incidence of low intelligence quotient (IQ) scores among infants of birth weight less than 1300 grams who received a very high protein intake (6 to 7.2 g/kg). Higher protein intake (≥ 3.0 g/kg/d but < 4.0 g/kg/d) from formula accelerates weight gain. However, limited information is available regarding the impact of higher formula protein intake on long-term outcomes such as neurodevelopmental abnormalities. Available evidence is not adequate to permit specific recommendations regarding the provision of very high protein intake (> 4.0 g/kg/d) from formula during the initial hospital stay or after discharge.

The review authors searched the medical literature to identify studies that compared protein intake as follows: between 3 and 4 g of protein per kg of infant body weight each day versus less than 3.0 g/kg/d or greater than 4.0 g/kg/d by low birth weight infants fed formula during their initial hospital stay. Increased protein intake resulted in greater weight gain of around 2.0 g/kg/d. Based on increased body incorporation of nitrogen, this was associated with increased lean body mass. The present conclusion was based on six studies that changed only the protein content of the formula and was supported by three additional studies that made changes in other nutrients as well. No significant difference in the concentration of plasma phenylalanine was noted between infants fed high or low protein content formula. The review was limited in the conclusions made because differences in protein content among comparison groups in some of the individual trials were small and formulas differed substantially across studies; some studies included healthier and more mature premature infants. Study periods varied from eight days to two years, so information on long-term outcomes was limited. Existing research is not adequate to allow specific recommendations regarding formula with protein content that provides more than 4.0 g/kg/d.

10.1002/14651858.CD003959.pub3

cochrane-simplification-train-3459

cochrane-simplification-train-3459

One RCT involving 36 patients with generalised anxiety disorder was eligible for inclusion. This was a 4 week pilot study of valerian, diazepam and placebo. There were no significant differences between the valerian and placebo groups in HAM-A total scores, or in somatic and psychic factor scores. Similarly, there were no significant differences in HAM-A scores between the valerian and diazepam groups, although based on STAI-Trait scores, significantly greater symptom improvement was indicated in the diazepam group. There were no significant differences between the three groups in the number of patients reporting side effects or in dropout rates. Since only one small study is currently available, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about the efficacy or safety of valerian compared with placebo or diazepam for anxiety disorders. RCTs involving larger samples and comparing valerian with placebo or other interventions used to treat of anxiety disorders, such as antidepressants, are needed.

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of valerian for anxiety disorders. Only one study was identified, involving 36 patients and comparing valerian with placebo and diazepam. This study found no significant differences in effectiveness between valerian and placebo, or between valerian and diazepam, for clinician-rated anxiety symptoms, and that both valerian and diazepam were equally well tolerated by patients. However, additional studies with larger numbers of patients are necessary before drawing conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of valerian as a treatment option for anxiety disorders.

10.1002/14651858.CD004515.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3460

cochrane-simplification-train-3460

We included 15 studies that involved 1101 children in this updated review. One study was added as a result of our 2012 search, another previously included study was removed due to lack of randomization. Fourteen included studies compared NSAIDs with other analgesics or placebo and reported on bleeding requiring surgical intervention. The use of NSAIDs was associated with a non-significant increase in the risk of bleeding requiring surgical intervention: Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 4.01). Ten studies involving 365 children reported perioperative bleeding requiring non-surgical intervention. NSAIDs did not significantly alter the number of perioperative bleeding events requiring non-surgical intervention: Peto OR 0.99 (95% CI 0.41 to 2.40) but the confidence intervals did not exclude an increased risk. Thirteen studies involving 1021 children reported postoperative vomiting. There was less vomiting when NSAIDs were used as part of the analgesic regime than when NSAIDs were not used: Mantel Haenszel (M-H) risk ratio (RR) 0.72 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.85). There is insufficient evidence to exclude an increased risk of bleeding when NSAIDs are used in paediatric tonsillectomy. They do however confer the benefit of a reduction in vomiting.

The main limitation of our updated review was that bleeding following tonsillectomy is an uncommon event (occurring in 3% to 5% of children). We found all the data from randomized controlled trials that are currently available (15 trials studying approximately 1000 children). Our results were consistent with both an increased and decreased risk of bleeding. There were insufficient data to compare the risk of bleeding with each individual type of NSAID. However, we were able to compare ketorolac, which has been perceived as having a greater risk of bleeding, with the other NSAIDs and found no increased risk of bleeding. There was less nausea and vomiting when NSAIDs were used as part of the pain relief regime than when NSAIDs were not used. There is insufficient evidence to exclude an increased risk of bleeding when NSAIDs are used in paediatric tonsillectomy. They do, however, confer the benefit of a reduction in vomiting.

10.1002/14651858.CD003591.pub3

cochrane-simplification-train-3461

cochrane-simplification-train-3461

Five studies (combined total n=998) met inclusion criteria. Four studies (n=724) provided leaving the study early data and results suggested that individuals treated with a typical antipsychotic medication are less likely to leave the study early than those treated with placebo (Chlorpromazine: 3 RCTs n=353, RR 0.4 CI 0.3 to 0.5, NNT 3.2, Fluphenaxine: 1 RCT n=240, RR 0.5 CI 0.3 to 0.8, NNT 5; Thioridazine: 1 RCT n=236, RR 0.44 CI 0.3 to 0.7, NNT 4.3, Trifulperazine: 1 RCT n=94, RR 0.96 CI 0.3 to 3.6). Two studies contributed data to assessment of adverse effects and present a general pattern of more frequent side effects among individuals treated with typical antipsychotic medications compared to placebo. One trial suggested a higher rehospitalisation rate for those receiving chlorpromazine compared to placebo (n=80, RR 2.29 CI 1.3 to 4.0, NNH 2.9). However, a higher attrition in the placebo group is likely to have introduced a survivor bias into this comparison. One study contributes data to a comparison of trifluoperazine to psychotherapy on long-term health in favour of the trifluoperazine group (n=92, MD 5.8 CI 1.6 to 0.0); however, data from this study are also likely to contain biases due to selection and attrition. One other study contributes data to a comparison of typical antipsychotic medication to psychosocial treatment on six-week outcome measures of global psychopathology (n=89, MD 0.01 CI -0.6 to 0.6) and global improvement (n=89, MD -0.03 CI -0.5 to 0.4), indicating no between-group differences. On the whole, there is very little useable data in the few studies meeting inclusion criteria. With only a few studies meeting inclusion criteria, and with limited useable data in these studies, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. The preliminary pattern of evidence suggests that people with early episode schizophrenia treated with typical antipsychotic medications are less likely to leave the study early, but more likely to experience medication-related side effects. Data are too sparse to assess the effects of antipsychotic medication on outcomes in early episode schizophrenia.

There are only a few good quality studies comparing the acute treatment of early episode schizophrenia with an antipsychotic medication compared to placebo or psychosocial treatment. It appears that initial medication treatment reduces the study attrition rates while also increasing the risk for medication-induced side effects. Data are too limited to assess the effects of initial antipsychotic medication treatment on outcomes for individuals with an early episode of schizophrenia.

10.1002/14651858.CD006374.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3462

cochrane-simplification-train-3462

We included eight trials of influenza vaccination compared with placebo or no vaccination, with 12,029 participants receiving at least one vaccination or control treatment. We included six new studies (n = 11,251), in addition to the two included in the previous version of the review. Four of these trials (n = 10,347) focused on prevention of influenza in the general or elderly population and reported cardiovascular outcomes among their safety analyses; four trials (n = 1682) focused on prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with established coronary heart disease. These populations were analysed separately. Follow-up continued between 42 days and one year. Five RCTs showed deficits in at least three of the risk of bias criteria assessed. When reported (seven studies), vaccination provided adequate immunogenicity or protection against influenza. Cardiovascular mortality was reported by four secondary prevention trials and was significantly reduced by influenza vaccination overall (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.76; P value 0.003) with no significant heterogeneity between studies, and by three trials reporting cardiovascular mortality as part of their safety analyses when the numbers of events were too small to permit conclusions. In studies of patients with coronary heart disease, composite outcomes of cardiovascular events tended to be decreased with influenza vaccination compared with placebo. Generally no significant difference was found between comparison groups regarding individual outcomes such as myocardial infarction. In patients with cardiovascular disease, influenza vaccination may reduce cardiovascular mortality and combined cardiovascular events. However, studies had some risk of bias, and results were not always consistent, so additional higher-quality evidence is necessary to confirm these findings. Not enough evidence was available to establish whether influenza vaccination has a role to play in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

We included randomised studies comparing people receiving flu vaccine with those receiving no vaccine (placebo or no treatment). For this review update, we found eight trials studying 12,029 participants. Four of these studies examined patients with known heart disease (1682 participants), and the other four focused on the general population or elderly people (10,347 participants). The general population studies reported cardiovascular disease outcomes as part of their safety analyses, but the numbers of cases were too few to allow a judgement on whether flu vaccination was protective in these populations, and no differences were seen between groups. Overall, studies in people with heart disease suggest that flu vaccination may reduce death as a result of cardiovascular disease and may reduce combined cardiovascular disease events (such as heart attacks, strokes, necessity for bypass operations, etc.). However, these studies were small and had some risk of bias, so larger studies of better quality are needed to confirm the results.

10.1002/14651858.CD005050.pub3

cochrane-simplification-train-3463

cochrane-simplification-train-3463

For viable lesions in children, there were no trials. For viable lesions in adults, no difference was detected for albendazole compared with no treatment for recurrence of seizures (116 participants, one trial); but fewer participants with albendazole had lesions at follow up (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.70; 192 participants, two trials). For non-viable lesions in children, seizures recurrence was less common with albendazole compared with no treatment (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.75; 329 participants, four trials). There was no difference detected in the persistence of lesions at follow up (570 participants, six trials). For non-viable lesions in adults, there were no trials. In trials including viable, non-viable or mixed lesions (in both children and adults), headaches were more common with albendazole alone (RR 9.49, 95% CI 1.40 to 64.45; 106 participants, two trials), but no difference was detected in one trial giving albendazole with corticosteroids (116 participants, one trial). In patients with viable lesions, evidence from trials of adults suggests albendazole may reduce the number of lesions. In trials of non-viable lesions, seizure recurrence was substantially lower with albendazole, which is counter-intuitive. It may be that steroids influence headache during treatment, but further research is needed to test this.

In this review of 21 relevant randomized controlled trials, most studies examined the effects of albendazole. In patients with viable lesions, there is only evidence available for adult patients; this suggests that albendazole may reduce the number of lesions. In patients with non-viable lesions, there is only evidence available for children; this suggests that seizure recurrence was lower with albendazole, which goes against the opinions of some experts. There is insufficient evidence available to assess praziquantel.

10.1002/14651858.CD000215.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3464

cochrane-simplification-train-3464

We found two randomised controlled trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria of our review. The trials provided data for meta-analysis. We judged the two trials as trials at low risk of bias. The two trials randomised a total of 213 infants to glucocorticosteroids versus placebo. In our Trial Sequential Analysis, the required information size (that is, the meta-analytic sample size) was not reached for any outcome. Trials were funded by charities, public organisations, and received support from private sector companies, none of which seemed to have an interest in the outcome of the respective trials. The effect of glucocorticosteroids after Kasai portoenterostomy on all-cause mortality is uncertain; the confidence interval is consistent with appreciable benefit and harm (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.14 to 6.90; low-certainty evidence). The results showed little or no difference in adverse effects between the use of glucocorticosteroids or placebo after Kasai portoenterostomy, however this analysis was based on a single trial and we have low certainty in the result (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20;). Available data suggest that the proportions of infants who do not clear their jaundice at six months is similar between the two groups (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality or liver transplantation did not differ at two years between the two groups (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.39; low-certainty evidence). There were no data regarding health-related quality of life. Our searches also yielded 19 observational studies, some of them containing limited information on harmful effects of glucocorticosteroid treatment. We presented the extracted information narratively. We identified one further ongoing trial with no currently available results. The two meta-analysed randomised clinical trials present insufficient evidence to determine the effects of using glucocorticosteroids versus placebo after Kasai portoenterostomy in infants with biliary atresia on any of the primary or secondary review outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to support glucocorticosteroid use in the postoperative management of infants with biliary atresia for long-term outcomes of all-cause mortality or liver transplantation. It is also unclear if glucocorticosteroids are able to reduce the numbers of infants who did not clear their jaundice by six months. Further randomised, placebo-controlled trials are required to be able to determine if glucocorticosteroids may be of benefit in the postoperative management of infants with biliary atresia treated with Kasai portoenterostomy. Such trials need to be conducted as multicentre trials.

We performed a search which included studies up to 20 December 2017. We identified two randomised clinical trials (where participants are divided by chance into the trial groups) which met the requirements for our review and followed-up the participants for at least two years. We identified 19 further observational studies from which we were able to report some findings on harms in a narrative form. The randomised trials included 107 infants who were given glucocorticosteroids and 104 who were given placebo. Trials were funded by charities, public organisations, and received support from private sector companies, all of which did not seem to have any interest in the outcome of the respective trials. Funding The included trials outlined their sources of funding, and the review authors deemed that there were no conflicts of interest. Review authors did not receive funding to carry out this review. Key results We did not find any differences between the groups of infants treated with glucocorticosteroids compared with placebo in terms of mortality, adverse events, ability to clear jaundice, or need for a liver transplant. Quality of the evidence We assessed the two trials as having low risk of bias (we had no concerns that their design and reporting may deviate from the truth), but they were at high risk of imprecision (inexact evaluations of outcomes). They used different categories for adverse events, and we were unable to combine the data from the trials. We could not include enough infants in our analyses (only two published trials) in order to detect small differences between the two intervention groups. The certainty of the evidence was low for mortality, adverse events, ability to clear jaundice, or need for a liver transplant outcomes. One further ongoing trial was identified, with no currently available results. Future steps We need further randomised clinical trials that compare glucocorticosteroids with placebo in order to find out if glucocorticosteroids are of benefit in the postoperative management of infants with biliary atresia. Such trials need to be conducted at different clinical centres.

10.1002/14651858.CD008735.pub3

cochrane-simplification-train-3465

cochrane-simplification-train-3465

Six studies (four RCTs and two prospective observational cohort studies), involving 7999 participants comparing supervised OST treatment with unsupervised treatment, met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was generally moderate across trials, but the results reported on outcomes that we planned to consider were limited. Overall, we judged the quality of the evidence from very low to low for all the outcomes. We found no difference in retention at any duration with supervised compared to unsupervised dosing (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.12, 716 participants, four trials, low-quality evidence) or in retention in the shortest follow-up period, three months (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; 472 participants, three trials, low-quality evidence). Additional data at 12 months from one observational study found no difference in retention between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.14; n = 300).There was no difference in abstinence at the end of treatment (self-reported drug use) (67% versus 60%, P = 0.33, 293 participants, one trial, very low-quality evidence); and in diversion of medication (5% versus 2%, 293 participants, one trial, very low-quality evidence). Regarding our secondary outcomes, we did not found a difference in the incidence of adverse effects in the supervised compared to unsupervised control group (RR 0.63; 96% CI 0.10 to 3.86; 363 participants, two trials, very low-quality evidence). Data on severity of dependence were very limited (244 participants, one trial) and showed no difference between the two approaches. Data on deaths were reported in two studies. One trial reported two deaths in the supervised group (low-quality evidence), while in the cohort study all-cause mortality was found lower in regular supervision group (crude mortality rate 0.60 versus 0.81 per 100 person-years), although after adjustment insufficient evidence existed to suggest that regular supervision was protective (mortality rate ratio = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.67 to 2.27). No studies reported pain symptoms, drug craving, aberrant opioid-related behaviours, days of unsanctioned opioid use and overdose. Take-home medication strategies are attractive to treatment services due to lower costs, and place less restrictions on clients, but it is unknown whether they may be associated with increased risk of diversion and unsanctioned use of medication. There is uncertainty about the effects of supervised dosing compared with unsupervised medication due to the low and very low quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of interest for this review. Data on defined secondary outcomes were similarly limited. More research comparing supervised and take-home medication strategies is needed to support decisions on the relative effectiveness of these strategies. The trials should be designed and conducted with high quality and over a longer follow-up period to support comparison of strategies at different stages of treatment. In particular, there is a need for studies assessing in more detail the risk of diversion and safety outcomes of using supervised OST to manage opioid dependence.

We identified six studies involving 7999 people receiving treatment with methadone (7786 people) or buprenorphine–naloxone (213 people ) for opioid dependence. Four of the studies were randomised controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups), while the other two studies followed groups of people over time. Four of the studies were funded by the National Institutes for Health Research and by the Health Research Board, with one study not reporting the funding source. One study was also funded by the drug company of buprenorphine–naloxone. At three or more months follow-up, this review found no evidence on benefit of the supervised dosing with respect to keep people in treatment, or reduce opioid use, mortality reduction and adverse drug events. One study found that supervised dosing led to a reduction of diversion. None of the studies assessed the effect of supervised dosing on pain symptoms, drug craving, days of unsanctioned opioid use, overdose and hospitalisation. We are unable to make any conclusion about the effectiveness of supervised dosing compared to dispensing of medication as take-home doses, in the context of OST. Further research is required to determine the effectiveness of supervised or take-home dosing in OST. Overall, the studies were moderately well-conducted, but there was a small number of studies reporting outcomes of interest, therefore insufficient to evaluate the efficacy of intervention such as diversion, opoid use reduction, retention in treatment and frequency of unsanctioned opioid use, Furthermore, low rates of occurrence of some events between studies resulted in the overall quality of the evidence being assessed as low and very low. This indicates that further evidence would be likely to change the estimates of relative effect made in this review.

10.1002/14651858.CD011983.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3466

cochrane-simplification-train-3466

Eight studies, recruiting over 700 participants, compared the use of dental cavity liners to no liners for Class I and Class II resin-based composite restorations. Seven studies evaluated postoperative hypersensitivity measured by various methods. All studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. There was inconsistent evidence regarding postoperative hypersensitivity (either measured using cold response or patient-reported), with a benefit shown at some, but not all, time points (low-quality evidence). Four trials measured restoration longevity. Two of the studies were judged to be at high risk and two at unclear risk of bias. No difference in restoration failure rates were shown at 1 year follow-up, with no failures reported in either group for three of the four studies; the fourth study had a risk ratio (RR) 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 15.00) (low-quality evidence). Three studies evaluated restoration longevity at 2 years follow-up and, again, no failures were shown in either group. No adverse events were reported in any of the included studies. There is inconsistent, low-quality evidence regarding the difference in postoperative hypersensitivity subsequent to placing a dental cavity liner under Class I and Class II posterior resin-based composite restorations in permanent posterior teeth in adults or children 15 years or older. Furthermore, no evidence was found to demonstrate a difference in the longevity of restorations placed with or without dental cavity liners.

The evidence in this review, carried out by authors from Cochrane Oral Health, is up to date as of 12 November 2018. Eight studies, with over 700 participants, were included. Two studies were conducted in the USA, two in Thailand, two in Germany and one each in Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The studies compared the use of liners under tooth-colored resin fillings (RBC) in permanent teeth at the back of the mouth to no liners for Class I and Class II fillings. One of the two studies in the USA took place in dental practices, the others in university-based dental schools. All participants were over 15 years of age. Very little evidence was found to show that a liner under Class I and II RBC fillings in permanent teeth in the back of the mouth reduced sensitivity in adults or children 15 years or older. No evidence was found to show that there was any difference in the length of time fillings lasted when placed with or without a cavity liner. No adverse events were reported in any of the included studies. The body of evidence identified in this review does not allow for robust conclusions about the effects of dental cavity liners. The quality of the evidence identified in this review is low and there is a lack of confidence in the effect estimates. Furthermore, no evidence was found to demonstrate a difference in how long restorations last when placed with or without dental cavity liners.

10.1002/14651858.CD010526.pub3

cochrane-simplification-train-3467

cochrane-simplification-train-3467

Of 8545 identified citations, including 7668 unique citations, 16 papers reporting on 7 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These trials enrolled 1486 participants. The oral anticoagulant was warfarin in six of these RCTs and apixaban in the seventh RCT. The comparator was either placebo or no intervention. The meta-analysis of the studies comparing VKA to no VKA did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in mortality at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.03; risk difference (RD) 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 75 fewer to 17 more; moderate certainty evidence). One study assessed the effect of VKA on thrombotic outcomes. The study did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in PE when comparing VKA to no VKA (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.58; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 6 fewer to 98 more; very low certainty evidence), but found that VKA compared to no VKA likely decreases the incidence of DVT (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.42; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 38 fewer to 16 more; low certainty evidence). VKA increased both major bleeding (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.86 to 4.62; RD 107 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 201 more; moderate certainty evidence) and minor bleeding (RR 3.14, 95% CI 1.85 to 5.32; RD 167 more per 1000, 95% CI 66 more to 337 more; moderate certainty evidence). The study assessing the effect of DOAC compared to no DOAC did not rule out a clinically significant increase or decrease in mortality at three months (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.56; RD 51 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 65 fewer to 104 more; low certainty evidence), PE (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; RD 28 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 97 more; low certainty evidence), symptomatic DVT (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.32; RD 93 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 100 fewer to 32 more; low certainty evidence), major bleeding (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; RD 28 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 33 fewer to 97 more; low certainty evidence); and minor bleeding (RR 4.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 79.68; RD 0 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 0 fewer to 8 more; low certainty evidence). The existing evidence does not show a mortality benefit from oral anticoagulation in people with cancer but suggests an increased risk for bleeding. Editorial note: this 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.

We searched the scientific literature for studies of anticoagulants in people with cancer. The evidence is current to December 2017. We included seven trials including 1486 participants with cancer. Most trials included participants with various types of cancer especially lung and pancreatic cancer. We found six studies using warfarin and one study using apixaban. When considering people with cancer in general, warfarin had no effect on mortality (death rate) or the risk of blood clots. However, it increased the risk of major bleeding in 107 more people per 1000 population and minor bleeding in 167 more people per 1000 population. Apixaban had no effect on mortality, recurrence of blood clots in blood vessels, major bleeding or minor bleeding; however, these findings were based on only one study. When comparing warfarin to no warfarin, we judged the certainty of the evidence (how sure and confident we are of the findings) to be moderate for mortality at one year and major and minor bleeding, low for symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (blood clot within a deep vein, most commonly the legs) and very low for pulmonary embolism (blood clot in the blood vessels of the lungs). When comparing apixaban to no apixaban, we judged the certainty of evidence to be low for mortality at three months, major and minor bleeding, pulmonary embolism and symptomatic deep vein thrombosis. Editorial note: this 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.

10.1002/14651858.CD006466.pub6

cochrane-simplification-train-3468

cochrane-simplification-train-3468

A total of 14 RCTs, with 4732 participants, were included in this review covering short-term (≤ 4 weeks; 6 studies), medium-term (> 4 weeks ≤ 6 months; 6 studies) and long-term treatment (> 6 months; 2 studies) with eszopiclone. Most RCTs included in the review included participants aged between 18 and 64 years, three RCTs only included elderly participants (64 to 85 years) and one RCT included participants with a broader age range (35 to 85 years). Seven studies considered primary insomnia; the remaining studies considered secondary insomnia comorbid with depression (2), generalised anxiety (1), back pain (1), Parkinson's disease (1), rheumatoid arthritis (1) and menopausal transition (1). Meta-analytic integrations of participant-reported data on sleep efficacy outcomes demonstrated better results for eszopiclone compared to placebo: a 12-minute decrease of sleep onset latency (mean difference (MD) -11.94 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.03 to -7.86; 9 studies, 2890 participants, moderate quality evidence), a 17-minute decrease of wake time after sleep onset (MD -17.02 min, 95% CI -24.89 to -9.15; 8 studies, 2295 participants, moderate quality evidence) and a 28-minute increase of total sleep time (MD 27.70 min, 95% CI 20.30 to 35.09; 10 studies, 2965 participants, moderate quality evidence). There were no significant changes from baseline to the first three nights after drug discontinuation for sleep onset latency (MD 17.00 min, 95% CI -4.29 to 38.29; 1 study, 291 participants, low quality evidence) and wake time after sleep onset (MD -6.71 min, 95% CI -21.25 to 7.83; 1 study, 291 participants, low quality evidence). Adverse events during treatment that were documented more frequently under eszopiclone compared to placebo included unpleasant taste (risk difference (RD) 0.18, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.21; 9 studies, 3787 participants), dry mouth (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.06; 6 studies, 2802 participants), somnolence (RD 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.06; 8 studies, 3532 participants) and dizziness (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.05; 7 studies, 2933 participants). According to the GRADE criteria, evidence was rated as being of moderate quality for sleep efficacy outcomes and adverse events and of low quality for rebound effects and next-day functioning. Eszopiclone appears to be an efficient drug with moderate effects on sleep onset and maintenance. There was no or little evidence of harm if taken as recommended. However, as certain patient subgroups were underrepresented in RCTs included in the review, findings might not have displayed the entire spectrum of possible adverse events. Further, increased caution is required in elderly individuals with cognitive and motor impairments and individuals who are at increased risk of using eszopiclone in a non-recommended way.

On average, people taking eszopiclone fell asleep 12 minutes faster than those taking placebo, were 17 minutes less awake during the night and had, in total, about half an hour more sleep than people in the placebo group. As side effects, eszopiclone can cause unpleasant taste, dizziness, dry mouth, and tiredness during the day. Clinical studies did not find evidence that eszopiclone was causing serious harm or withdrawal symptoms or whether it was addictive if it was stopped and not taken after several weeks or months of treatment. Nevertheless, as clinical studies included in the review did not cover certain groups (e.g. elderly people with cognitive or motor problems or certain conditions of medication intake), it is important for patients to consult their doctor who knows their medical history and condition. Future research needs to compare eszopiclone with other sleep medications to help physicians and patients decide which of the available treatment options to prefer. In addition, sleep medications that are also well tolerated by elderly individuals and individuals with alcohol or drug problems need to be identified.

10.1002/14651858.CD010703.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3469

cochrane-simplification-train-3469

We included seven RCTs conducted in low-income countries that involved 1529 children (780 with pneumonia and 749 with severe or very severe pneumonia). Four studies used a single 100,000 IU dose of vitamin D₃ at the onset of illness or within 24 hours of hospital admission; two used a daily dose of oral vitamin D₃ (1000 IU for children aged up to one year and 2000 IU for children aged over one year) for five days; and one used a daily dose of oral vitamin D₃ (50,000 IU) for two days. One study reported microbiological and radiological diagnosis of pneumonia. The effects of vitamin D on outcomes were inconclusive when compared with control: time to resolution of acute illness (hours) (mean difference (MD) -0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.14 to 4.24; 3 studies; 935 children; low-quality evidence) mortality rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.28; 1 study; 193 children; very low-quality evidence); duration of hospitalisation (MD 0.49, 95% CI -8.41 to 9.4; 4 studies; 835 children; very low-quality evidence) and time to resolution of fever (MD 1.66, 95% CI -2.44 to 5.76; 4 studies; 584 children; very low-quality evidence). No major adverse events were reported. The GRADE assessment found very low-quality evidence (due to serious study limitations, inconsistencies, indirectness, and imprecision) for all outcomes except time to resolution of acute illness. One study was funded by the New Zealand Aid Corporation; one study was funded by an institutional grant; and five studies were unfunded. We are uncertain as to whether vitamin D has an important effect on outcomes because the results were imprecise. No major adverse events were reported. We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low to low. Several trials are ongoing and may provide additional information.

We included seven studies involving a total of 1529 children (780 with pneumonia (4 studies) and 749 with severe or very severe pneumonia (3 studies)) aged under 5 years from low-income countries. In four studies, a single large dose of vitamin D was used either when the child joined the study or within 24 hours of admission to hospital; in two studies, vitamin D was used for five days; and in one study, vitamin D was used for two days. One study excluded children whose vitamin D levels were normal. One study reported the cause of children's pneumonia. One study was funded by the New Zealand Aid Corporation; one was funded by an institutional grant; and five studies were unfunded. We are uncertain as to whether vitamin D has an important effect on outcomes due to the very-low quality of the evidence. Vitamin D may slightly decrease the time taken to get better from acute pneumonia (by 60 minutes) and the risk of death, and Vitamin D may increase the length of time in hospital (by 30 minutes) and the time taken for fever to resolve (by 90 minutes). However, there was no significant difference between groups for these outcomes. No major adverse events were reported. The quality of the evidence was very low, except for time to resolution of acute illness, which we assessed as low quality. We identified problems with the study methods and reporting, resulting in lack of precision in the included studies.

10.1002/14651858.CD011597.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3470

cochrane-simplification-train-3470

We included two trials that involved 294 infants. No new studies were included for the 2017 update. The incidence of death or BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age was not statistically significantly different between infants who received inhaled or systemic steroids (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; RD 0.05, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.16; 1 trial, N = 278). The incidence of BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age among survivors was not statistically significant between groups (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.90; RD 0.11, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.24; 1 trial, N = 206). There was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes of BPD at 28 days, death at 28 days or 36 weeks' postmenstrual age and the combined outcome of death or BPD by 28 days between groups (2 trials, N = 294). The duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly longer in the inhaled steroid group compared with the systemic steroid group (typical MD 4 days, 95% CI 0.2 to 8; 2 trials, N = 294; I² = 0%) as was the duration of supplemental oxygen (typical MD 11 days, 95% CI 2 to 20; 2 trials, N = 294; I² = 33%). The incidence of hyperglycaemia was significantly lower with inhaled steroids (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.71; RD -0.25, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.14; 1 trial, N = 278; NNTB 4, 95% CI 3 to 7 to avoid 1 infant experiencing hyperglycaemia). The rate of patent ductus arteriosus increased in the group receiving inhaled steroids (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.17; RD 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.33; 1 trial, N = 278; NNTH 5, 95% CI 3 to 10). In a subset of surviving infants in the United Kingdom and Ireland there were no significant differences in developmental outcomes at 7 years of age. However, there was a reduced risk of having ever been diagnosed as asthmatic by 7 years of age in the inhaled steroid group compared with the systemic steroid group (N = 48) (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.94; RD -0.31, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.05; NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 20). According to GRADE the quality of the evidence was moderate to low. Evidence was downgraded on the basis of design (risk of bias), consistency (heterogeneity) and precision of the estimates. Both studies received grant support and the industry provided aero chambers and metered dose inhalers of budesonide and placebo for the larger study. No conflict of interest was identified. We found no evidence that early inhaled steroids confer important advantages over systemic steroids in the management of ventilator-dependent preterm infants. Based on this review inhaled steroids cannot be recommended over systemic steroids as a part of standard practice for ventilated preterm infants. Because they might have fewer adverse effects than systemic steroids, further randomised controlled trials of inhaled steroids are needed that address risk/benefit ratio of different delivery techniques, dosing schedules and long-term effects, with particular attention to neurodevelopmental outcome.

The review looked at trials that compared preterm babies who received steroids by inhalation to those who received steroids systemically (through a vein or orally) while they were receiving mechanical ventilation. We included two trials that involved 294 infants. One study included 278 infants and the other study included 16 infants. No new studies were included for the 2017 update. Both studies received grant support and the industry provided aero chambers and metered dose inhalers of budesonide and placebo for the larger study. No conflict of interest was identified. There was no evidence that inhaling steroids compared to systemic steroids prevented the primary outcome of death or bronchopulmonary dysplasia. The number of days the baby needed mechanical ventilation support or additional oxygen were increased in infants who received inhaled steroids versus infants who received systemic steroids. These outcomes were reported in both the trials. The rate of patent ductus arteriosus (failure for the ductus arteriosus, an arterial shunt in fetal life, to close after birth) was increased in the group receiving inhaled steroids. There was a lower incidence of high blood sugars in the inhaled steroid group compared with the systemic steroid group. These secondary outcomes were reported in only one trial (the larger trial). In a sub-sample of 52 children at age 7 years there were no differences in long-term follow-up outcomes between the inhaled and the systemic steroid groups. in an even smaller sample of 48 infants the outcome of 'ever diagnosed as asthmatic by seven years of age' was significantly lower in the inhaled steroid group compared with the systemic steroid group. According to GRADE the quality of the evidence was moderate to low.

10.1002/14651858.CD002058.pub3

cochrane-simplification-train-3471

cochrane-simplification-train-3471

We included eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria, but four double-blind, double-dummy studies of around 2000 people dominated the analyses. These four trials were between 14 and 24 weeks long, all comparing tiotropium (usually Respimat) with salmeterol on top of medium doses of ICS. Studies reporting exacerbations requiring OCS showed no difference between the two add-ons, but our confidence in the effect was low due to inconsistency between studies and because the confidence intervals (CI) included significant benefit of either treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.18; 1753 participants; 3 studies); three more people per 1000 might have an exacerbation on LAMA, but the CIs ranged from 29 fewer to 61 more. Imprecision was also an issue for serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospital admission, rated low (serious adverse events) and very low quality (exacerbations requiring hospital admission), because there were so few events in the analyses. People taking LAMA scored slightly worse on two scales measuring quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; AQLQ) and asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire; ACQ); the evidence was rated high quality but the effects were small and unlikely to be clinically significant (AQLQ: mean difference (MD) -0.12, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05; 1745 participants; 1745; 4 studies; ACQ: MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.13; 1483 participants; 3 studies). There was some evidence to support small benefits of LAMA over LABA on lung function, including on our pre-specified preferred measure trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (MD 0.05 L, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; 1745 participants, 4 studies). However, the effects on other measures varied, and it is not clear whether the magnitude of the differences were clinically significant. More people had adverse events on LAMA but the difference with LABA was not statistically significant. Direct evidence of LAMA versus LABA as add-on therapy is currently limited to studies of less than six months comparing tiotropium (Respimat) to salmeterol, and we do not know how they compare in terms of exacerbations and serious adverse events. There was moderate quality evidence that LAMAs show small benefits over LABA on some measures of lung function, and high quality evidence that LABAs are slightly better for quality of life, but the differences were all small. Given the much larger evidence base for LABA versus placebo for people whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS, the current evidence is not strong enough to say that LAMA can be substituted for LABA as add-on therapy. The results of this review, alongside pending results from related reviews assessing the use of LAMA in other clinical scenarios, will help to define the role of these drugs in asthma and it is important that they be updated as results from ongoing and planned trials emerge.

We could not tell whether people taking LAMA were more or less likely to need oral corticosteroids for an asthma attack than people taking LABA because not many people needed them and the studies showed different results; overall three more people in 1000 might have an asthma attack on LAMA, but the real result could be anywhere between 29 fewer and 61 more than if you took a LABA. Similarly, too few people in the studies had serious side effects or asthma attacks that required urgent medical treatment to judge whether one treatment was better than the other. The studies showed that LAMAs might be a bit better than LABA for lung function (how well your lungs work), and LABAs slightly better for quality of life, but the differences were small and we could not tell if one was better than the other for most outcomes. The results were mostly based on four good studies of around 2000 people, which were between 14 and 24 weeks of duration. All of the studies looked at a LAMA drug called tiotropium.

10.1002/14651858.CD011438.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3472

cochrane-simplification-train-3472

A total of 14 trials, including 364 randomised participants, met the selection criteria. The risk of bias was low in most studies. Only one trial had a high risk of selection, performance and detection bias. No new studies were identified at this update. Meta-analysis of six trials in muscular dystrophies including 192 participants revealed a significant increase in muscle strength in the creatine group compared to placebo, with a mean difference of 8.47%; (95% confidence intervals (CI) 3.55 to 13.38). Pooled data of four trials including 115 participants showed that a significantly higher number of participants felt better during creatine treatment compared to placebo with a risk ratio of 4.51 (95% CI 2.33 to 8.74). One trial in 37 participants with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies also showed a significant improvement in functional performance. No trial reported any clinically relevant adverse event. In metabolic myopathies, meta-analyses of three cross-over trials including 33 participants revealed no significant difference in muscle strength. One trial reported a significant deterioration of activities of daily living (mean difference 0.54 on a 1 to 10 scale; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.93) and an increase in muscle pain during high-dose creatine treatment in McArdle disease. High quality evidence from RCTs shows that short- and medium-term creatine treatment increases muscle strength in muscular dystrophies. There is also evidence that creatine improves functional performance in muscular dystrophy and idiopathic inflammatory myopathy. Creatine is well tolerated in these people. High quality but limited evidence from RCTs does not show significant improvement in muscle strength in metabolic myopathies. High-dose creatine treatment impaired activities of daily living and increased muscle pain in McArdle disease.

This is an update of our review evaluating creatine treatment in muscle disorders that was first published in 2007. At this update we identified no new studies but we had previously found 14 randomised controlled trials with 364 participants which met our defined selection criteria. The methodological quality of these studies was high, with only one exception. Analysis of pooled results showed a significant increase in muscle strength in muscular dystrophies and an improvement in activities of daily living in muscular dystrophies and inflammatory myopathies during creatine treatment compared to placebo. Significant adverse events occurred only in people with glycogen storage disease type V presenting as an increase in muscle pain episodes and impairment in activities of daily living.

10.1002/14651858.CD004760.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3473

cochrane-simplification-train-3473

We identified 26 completed trials, of which 17 were randomised. Overall, counselling and educational interventions, with or without provision of free or discounted smoke alarms, modestly increased the likelihood of owning an alarm (OR = 1.21; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.64) and having an installed, functional alarm (OR = 1.33; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.80). Whether or not the intervention programme provided free or discounted smoke alarms in addition to education did not influence these results. The results were sensitive to trial quality, however. Counselling as part of primary care child health surveillance had somewhat greater effects on alarm ownership (OR = 1.96; 95% CI 1.03 to 3.72) and function (OR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.85), results that were generally supported by non-randomised trials evaluating similar interventions. Injury outcomes were reported in only one randomised controlled trial, which found no effect of a smoke alarm give-away programme on total injuries (rate ratio 1.3; 95% CI 0.9 to 1.9) or on hospitalizations and deaths (rate ratio 1.3; 95% CI 0.7 to 2.3), in contrast to the substantial reduction in serious injuries reported in a non-randomised trial that evaluated a similar give-away programme. Neither trial showed a beneficial effect on fires. Mass media and community education showed little benefit in multiple non-randomised trials. Two trials, one of which was randomised, showed that smoke alarm installation programmes increase the likelihood of having a working smoke alarm, and the non-randomised trial reported reductions in fire-related injuries. This review found that programmes to promote smoke alarms have at most modest beneficial effects on smoke alarm ownership and function, and no demonstrated beneficial effect on fires or fire-related injuries. Counselling as part of child health surveillance has a somewhat greater effect on smoke alarm ownership and function, but its effects on injuries are unevaluated. Community smoke alarm give-away programmes have not been demonstrated to increase smoke alarm prevalence or to reduce fires or fire-related injuries. Community-based education programmes have not been shown to reduce burns or fire-related injuries. Community smoke alarm installation programmes may increase the prevalence of working alarms and reduce fire-related injuries, but these results require confirmation, and the cost-effectiveness of such programmes has not been evaluated. Efforts to promote smoke alarms through installation programmes should be evaluated by adequately designed randomised controlled trials measuring injury outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

This review found that programmes to promote smoke alarms increased smoke alarm ownership and function modestly, if at all, and have not demonstrated a beneficial effect on fires or fire-related injuries. Counselling by health care workers, as part of child health care, may increase ownership and use of smoke alarms in homes but effects on injuries have not been examined. There is little evidence to support community-wide mass media or educational programmes or programmes to give away free smoke alarms as effective methods to promote smoke alarms or reduce injuries from fire. More research is needed to examine community-wide smoke alarm installation programmes.

10.1002/14651858.CD002246

cochrane-simplification-train-3474

cochrane-simplification-train-3474

We included six RCTs (521 participants), comparing abdominal drainage and no drainage in patients undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The studies were conducted in North America, Asia and Africa. The majority of the participants had perforated appendicitis with local or general peritonitis. All participants received antibiotic regimens after open appendectomy. None of the trials was at low risk of bias. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of abdominal drainage and no drainage on intra-peritoneal abscess at 14 days (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.21; 5 RCTs; 453 participants; very low-quality evidence) or for wound infection at 14 days (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.56; 5 RCTs; 478 participants; very low-quality evidence). The increased risk of 30-day overall complication rate (morbidity) in the drainage group was rated as very low-quality evidence (RR 6.67, 95% CI 2.13 to 20.87; 1 RCT; 90 participants). There were seven deaths in the drainage group (N = 183) compared to one in the no drainage group (N = 180), equating to an increase in the risk of 30-day mortality from 0.6% to 2.7% (Peto odds ratio (OR) 4.88, 95% CI 1.18 to 20.09; 4 RCTs; 363 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There is 'very low-quality' evidence that drainage increases hospital stay compared to the no drainage group by 2.17 days (95% CI 1.76 to 2.58; 3 RCTs; 298 participants). Other outlined outcomes, hospital costs, pain, and quality of life, were not reported in any of the included studies. The quality of the current evidence is very low. The effect of abdominal drainage on the prevention of intra-peritoneal abscess or wound infection after open appendectomy is uncertain for patients with complicated appendicitis. The increased rates for overall complication rate and hospital stay for the drainage group compared to no drainage group is also subject to great uncertainty. Thus, there is no evidence for any clinical improvement by using abdominal drainage in patients undergoing open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The increased risk of mortality with drainage comes from eight deaths observed in just under 400 people recruited to the studies. Larger studies are needed to determine the effects of drainage on morbidity and mortality outcomes more reliably.

We searched for all relevant studies up to 30 June 2017. We identified six clinical studies involving a total of 521 participants. All six studies compared drain use versus no drain use in individuals having an emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Studies were conducted in the USA, India, Kenya, Pakistan, and Turkey. The age of the individuals in the trials ranged from 0 years to 82 years. The analyses were unable to show a difference in the number of individuals with intra-peritoneal abscess or wound infection when comparing drain use with no drain use. The death rate was higher in the drainage group than in the no drainage group. The hospital stay was longer (about two days - an 43.5% increase on an 'average' stay) in the drain group than in the no drain group. None of the studies reported the costs, pain, and quality of life. Overall, there is no evidence for any clinical improvement by using abdominal drainage in individuals undergoing open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. All of the included studies had shortcomings in terms of methodological quality or reporting of outcomes. Overall, the quality of the current evidence is judged to be very low.

10.1002/14651858.CD010168.pub3

cochrane-simplification-train-3475

cochrane-simplification-train-3475

Six studies (484 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Five studies compared high volume PD with daily haemodialysis, extended daily haemodialysis, or continuous renal replacement therapy. One study focused on the intensity of PD. The overall risk of bias was low to unclear. Compared to extracorporeal therapy, PD probably made little or no difference to all-cause mortality (4 studies, 383 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.55; I2 = 69%; moderate certainty evidence), or kidney function recovery (3 studies, 333 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). PD probably slightly reduces the amount of fluid removal compared to extracorporeal therapy (3 studies, 313 participants: MD -0.59 L/d, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.01; I2 = 89%; low certainty evidence), and probably made little or no difference to infectious complications (2 studies, 263 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.78; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether PD compared to extracorporeal therapy has any effects on weekly delivered Kt/V (2 studies, 263 participants: MD -2.47, 95% CI -5.17 to 0.22; I2 = 99%; very low certainty evidence), correction of acidosis (2 studies, 89 participants: RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 13.60; I2 = 96%; very low certainty evidence), or duration of dialysis (2 studies, 170 participants: MD -1.01 hours, 95% CI -91.49 to 89.47; I2 = 98%; very low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity was high and this may be due to the different extracorporeal therapies used. One study (61 participants) reported little or no difference to all-cause mortality, kidney function recovery, or infection between low and high and intensity PD. Weekly delivered Kt/V and fluid removal was lower with low compared to high intensity PD. Based on moderate (mortality, recovery of kidney function), low (infectious complications), or very low certainty evidence (correction of acidosis) there is probably little or no difference between PD and extracorporeal therapy for treating AKI. Fluid removal (low certainty) and weekly delivered Kt/V (very low certainty) may be higher with extracorporeal therapy.

Six randomised controlled trials (484 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Five studies compared high volume PD with daily haemodialysis, extended daily haemodialysis, or continuous renal replacement therapy, and one study compared different intensities of PD on AKI patients. Compared to extracorporeal therapy, PD probably made little or no difference to death due to any cause or recovery of kidney function. PD probably slightly reduces the amount of fluid removal compared to extracorporeal therapy, and probably made little or no difference to infectious complications. It is uncertain whether PD compared to extracorporeal therapy has any effects on weekly delivered Kt/V, correction of acidosis, or duration of dialysis. One study (61 participants) reported little or no difference to death due to any cause, kidney function recovery, or infection between low and high and intensity PD. Weekly delivered Kt/V and fluid removal was lower with low compared to high intensity PD. There is currently not enough evidence to determine whether there are significant differences in death due to any cause or recovery of kidney function between patients treated with PD, extracorporeal therapies, or intensity of PD.

10.1002/14651858.CD011457.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3476

cochrane-simplification-train-3476

There were no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that reported results in terms of the review's primary outcome of interest, weight gain or maintenance. However, we identified one RCT that assessed the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin on swallowing function in people with IBM. The trial authors did not specify the number of study participants who had dysphagia. There was also incomplete reporting of findings from videofluoroscopic investigations, which was one of the review's secondary outcome measures. The study did report reductions in the time taken to swallow, as measured using ultrasound. No serious adverse events occurred during the study, although data for the follow-up period were lacking. It was also unclear whether the non-serious adverse events reported occurred in the treatment group or the placebo group. We assessed this study as having a high risk of bias and uncertain confidence intervals for the review outcomes, which limited the overall quality of the evidence. Using GRADE criteria, we downgraded the quality of the evidence from this RCT to 'low' for efficacy in treating dysphagia, due to limitations in study design and implementation, and indirectness in terms of the population and outcome measures. Similarly, we assessed the quality of the evidence for adverse events as 'low'. From our search for RCTs, we identified two other non-randomised studies, which reported the effects of long-term intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in adults with IBM and lip-strengthening exercises in children with myotonic dystrophy type 1. Headaches affected two participants treated with long-term intravenous immunoglobulin therapy, who received a tailored dose reduction; there were no adverse events associated with lip-strengthening exercises. Both non-randomised studies identified improved outcomes for some participants following the intervention, but neither study specified the number of participants with dysphagia or demonstrated any group-level treatment effect for swallowing function using the outcomes prespecified in this review. There is insufficient and low-quality RCT evidence to determine the effect of interventions for dysphagia in long-term, progressive muscle disease. Clinically relevant effects of intravenous immunoglobulin for dysphagia in inclusion body myositis can neither be confirmed or excluded using the evidence presented in this review. Standardised, validated, and reliable outcome measures are needed to assess dysphagia and any possible treatment effect. Clinically meaningful outcomes for dysphagia may require a shift in focus from measures of impairment to disability associated with oral feeding difficulties.

This review included one trial (22 participants), which compared the effect of three months' intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) therapy with placebo. Three participants were also treated with prednisone during the trial. Some limitations in the design, conduct, and reporting of the study might have affected the results. We were most interested in the degree to which treatment affected weight, in terms of either halting weight loss or producing weight gain. We identified only one randomised controlled trial of intervention for managing dysphagia in one muscle disease, inclusion body myositis. There was not enough evidence for or against any specific intervention for dysphagia. Clinically relevant effects of IVIg for dysphagia in inclusion body myositis can neither be confirmed nor ruled out using the evidence in this review. This trial did not assess weight gain or maintenance or fully report effects of IVIg on swallowing, which the investigators measured using a self report questionnaire and videofluoroscopy (a moving X-ray of swallowing). Any harmful effects were not fully reported. Overall quality of the evidence was low due to limitations in study design and reporting. The evidence is up to date to January 2016.

10.1002/14651858.CD004303.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3477

cochrane-simplification-train-3477

We included three trials involving 1671 participants; oxytocin was the only uterotonic drug that was used. The dose and route of administration of oxytocin varied among the included studies. Administration of oxytocin before and after the expulsion of placenta does not significantly influence the incidence of postpartum haemorrhage (blood loss greater than 500 ml) (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.04; n = 1667, three trials); retained placenta (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.11; n = 1667, three trials); length of third stage of labour (minutes) (mean difference (MD) -0.30, 95% CI -0.95 to 0.36; n = 1667, three trials); postpartum blood loss (ml) (MD 22.32, 95% CI -58.21 to 102.86; n = 181, two trials); changes in haemoglobin (g/dL) (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.72; n = 51, one trial); blood transfusion (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.73; n = 1667, three trials); the use of additional uterotonics (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.52; n = 1667, three trials); the incidence of maternal hypotension (RR 2.48, 95% CI 0.23 to 26.70; n = 130, one trial) and the incidence of severe postpartum haemorrhage (blood loss 1000 ml or more) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.98; n = 130, one trial). No data on other maternal or neonatal outcome measures were available. Administration of oxytocin before and after the expulsion of placenta did not have any significant influence on many clinically important outcomes such as the incidence of postpartum haemorrhage, rate of placental retention and the length of the third stage of labour. However, the number of available studies were limited. The only uterotonic drug used was oxytocin, mainly through intravenous infusion, therefore its extrapolation to other routes of administration should be interpreted cautiously. More studies are required to examine other maternal and neonatal outcomes using consistent approaches.

This review of three trials (1671 participants) found that routine administration of oxytocin with the anterior shoulder compared with use of oxytocin after delivery of the placenta did not have any influence on the amount of bleeding postpartum or retained placenta. The route of administration of oxytocin in two of the three included studies was through intravenous infusion. Cord management at delivery was consistent with double clamping and immediate cutting after delivery of the baby. Application of controlled cord traction was slightly different among the included studies. In two of the studies, the placenta was delivered with controlled cord traction when signs of placental separation were present. Fundal pressure on the uterus was used in one study from the beginning to ensure continued uterine contraction. Oxytocin was the only uterotonic assessed. There were no assessments of any impact on neonatal health. More well designed studies using consistent approaches in this area of the management of the third stage of labour are required.

10.1002/14651858.CD006173.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3478

cochrane-simplification-train-3478

The meta-analysis included 894 men. No studies reported live birth. The combined fixed-effect odds ratio (OR) of the 10 studies for the outcome of pregnancy was 1.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.05, very low quality evidence), favouring the intervention. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was 17, suggesting benefit of varicocele treatment over expectant management for pregnancy rate in subfertile couples in whom varicocele in the man was the only abnormal finding. Omission of the studies including men with normal semen analysis and subclinical varicocele, some of which had semen analysis improvement as the primary outcome rather than live birth or pregnancy rate, was the subject of a planned subgroup analysis. The outcome of the subgroup analysis (five studies) also favoured treatment, with a combined OR 2.39 (95% CI 1.56 to 3.66). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome was 7. The evidence was suggestive rather than conclusive, as the main analysis was subject to fairly high statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 67%) and findings were no longer significant when a random-effects model was used or when analysis was restricted to higher quality studies. There is evidence suggesting that treatment of a varicocele in men from couples with otherwise unexplained subfertility may improve a couple's chance of pregnancy. However, findings are inconclusive as the quality of the available evidence is very low and more research is needed with live birth or pregnancy rate as the primary outcome.

This review analysed 10 studies (894 participants) and found evidence (combined odds ratio was 1.47 (95% CI 1.05 to 2.05) to suggest an increase in pregnancy rates after varicocele treatment compared to no treatment in subfertile couples, in whom, apart from poor sperm quality, varicocele in the man was the only abnormal finding. This means that 17 men would need to be treated to achieve one additional pregnancy. However, findings were inconclusive as the quality of the available evidence was very low and more research is needed with live birth or pregnancy rate as the primary outcome.

10.1002/14651858.CD000479.pub5

cochrane-simplification-train-3479

cochrane-simplification-train-3479

Eight trials recruiting a total of 637 infants met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. The infants included in the review were mainly formula-fed term infants. The trials were of variable methodological quality. Formula-fed term infants with GOR on feed thickeners had nearly two fewer episodes of regurgitation per day (mean difference -1.97 episodes per day, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.32 to -1.61; 6 studies, 442 infants, moderate-certainty evidence) and were 2.5 times more likely to be asymptomatic from regurgitation at the end of the intervention period (risk ratio 2.50, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.51; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 5, 95% CI 4 to 13; 2 studies, 186 infants, low-certainty evidence) when compared to infants with GOR on unthickened feeds. No studies reported failure to thrive as an outcome. We found low-certainty evidence based on 2 studies recruiting 116 infants that use of feed thickeners improved the oesophageal pH probe parameters of reflux index (i.e. percentage of time pH < 4), number of reflux episodes lasting longer than 5 minutes, and duration of longest reflux episode. No major side effects were reported with the use of feed thickeners. Information was insufficient to conclude which type of feed thickener is superior. Gastro-oesophageal reflux is a physiological self resolving phenomenon in infants that does not necessarily require any treatment. However, we found moderate-certainty evidence that feed thickeners should be considered if regurgitation symptoms persist in term bottle-fed infants. The reduction of two episodes of regurgitation per day is likely to be of clinical significance to caregivers. Due to the limited information available, we were unable to assess the use of feed thickeners in infants who are breastfeeding or preterm nor could we conclude which type of feed thickener is superior.

We examined the research published up to 22 November 2016. We found 8 clinical trials recruiting 637 babies up to 6 months of age who presented with symptoms of GOR. The recruited babies were mainly 'healthy' term babies (i.e. babies born within three weeks of the due date) who were bottle feeding. Three of the studies were funded by a pharmaceutical company, hence the quality of the evidence presented must be interpreted with caution. We found that term babies with GOR given feed thickeners had nearly two fewer reflux episodes per day. Babies with GOR were also 2.5 times more likely to have no reflux symptoms if feed thickeners were used. No studies reported information on failure to thrive (i.e. poor growth). We found that babies with GOR given feed thickeners showed an improvement in an important measure of acid reflux obtained from pH study. Reflux index (i.e. percentage of time of acidic reflux of pH < 4) was 5% lower in babies given feed thickeners. No major harms were reported in the eight studies. Due to study design limitations, we are moderately confident in the evidence for the reduction of two reflux episodes per day. Hence, feed thickeners can be useful in term babies who are bottle feeding and have troublesome GOR. We rated the quality of the evidence for the other outcomes as low due to the small number of studies with small numbers of babies recruited. Further research is needed to determine which type of feed thickener is better and whether feed thickeners are useful in babies with GOR who are breastfeeding or preterm.

10.1002/14651858.CD003211.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3480

cochrane-simplification-train-3480

Four trials were included (602 participants). Three trials were small single-centre trials, and the fourth a large multi-centre trial including 424 participants. All trials had methodological flaws, usually failure to conceal allocation and incomplete follow-up data, which put them at high risk of bias. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 15 years after treatment. Data for functional outcomes, including walking ability, from three trials could not be pooled. The strongest evidence was from the multi-centre trial. This showed no statistically or clinically significant differences between the surgical and conservatively treated groups at three years follow-up in the ''validated disease-specific" score (0 to 100: perfect result; 424 participants; mean difference (MD) 4.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.11 to 9.71; P = 0.12). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the risk of chronic pain at follow-up (19/40 versus 24/42; risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.18; 2 trials). The multi-centre trial found no statistically or clinically significant difference between the two groups in health-related quality of life at three years follow-up (SF-36 (0 to 100: best outcome): MD 4.00, 95% CI -1.16 to 9.16; P = 0.13). Two small trials provided some limited evidence of a tendency for a higher return to previous employment after surgery (27/34 versus 15/27; RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.81; I² = 55%; 2 trials). One small trial found no difference between the two groups in the ability to wear normal shoes, whereas another small trial found that surgery resulted in more people who were able to wear all shoes comfortably. There was a higher rate of major complications, such as surgical site infection, after surgery compared with conservative treatment (57/206 versus 42/218; RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.04; 1 trial). Conversely, significantly fewer surgical participants had subtalar arthrodeses due to the development of subtalar arthritis (7/206 versus 37/218; RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.44; 1 trial). There were no significant differences between the two groups in range of movement outcomes or radiological measurements (e.g. Bohler's angle). The bulk of the evidence in this review derives from one large multi-centre but inadequately reported trial conducted over 15 years ago. This found no significant differences between surgical or conservative treatment in functional ability and health related quality of life at three years after displaced intra-articular calcaneal fracture. Though it reported a greater risk of major complications after surgery, subtalar arthrodeses for the development of subtalar arthritis was significantly greater after conservative treatment. Overall, there is insufficient high quality evidence relating to current practice to establish whether surgical or conservative treatment is better for adults with displaced intra-articular calcaneal fracture. Evidence from adequately powered randomised, multi-centre controlled trials, assessing patient-centred and clinically relevant outcomes is required. However, it would be prudent to reassess this need after an update of the review that incorporates new evidence from a currently ongoing multi-centre trial.

This review included four studies (602 participants) that have looked at the results of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for people who have had a heel fracture. The strongest evidence comes from one large multi-centre Canadian trial that recruited 424 participants. The remaining studies were small. All four studies had weaknesses in their design, conduct and reporting. Based mainly on the results from the largest study, the review found no strong evidence of differences between surgical and non-surgical treatment in functional ability, including walking, and quality of life, at three years after treatment. From two small studies, there is some evidence that participants having surgery were more likely to return to work more quickly. However, those having surgery were more likely to have a major complication such as surgical site infection after treatment. Conversely, those having surgery were less likely to have joint fusion surgery because they had developed arthritis later on. The review concluded that there was currently insufficient evidence to say whether surgical or non-surgical treatment of heel fractures is best. Further good quality research is recommended.

10.1002/14651858.CD008628.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3481

cochrane-simplification-train-3481

Six trials with 658 participants met the inclusion criteria. At the time of this review, five trials were published in full text, and one study was available in abstract form only. No significant differences were demonstrated between the two delivery methods in terms of the need for hospital admission (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.59), change in oxygen saturation (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.33), PEFR (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.72 to 0.80), clinical score (WMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.37), in terms of need for additional treatment (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.65), or regarding change in heart rate per minute (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.42). Overall, this review did not identify a statistically significant difference between these two methods for delivering bronchodilator therapy to children with acute asthma or lower airways obstruction attacks. Care should be taken in the interpretation and applicability of our results because of the small number of RCTs along with few events available meeting the criteria for inclusion in the review, absence of the primary outcome of interest and other clinically important outcomes in the majority of included studies. The possible need for a face-mask in younger children using home-made spacers should also be considered in practice.

The aim of this review was to compare the response to inhaled beta-2 agonists delivered through a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) attached to home-made spacers, compared with beta-2 agonists delivered through a MDI attached to commercially produced spacers in children with acute exacerbations of wheezing or asthma. Six randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 658 participants met the inclusion criteria of the review. Overall, this review fails to identify a difference between these two delivery methods for delivering bronchodilator therapy to children with acute asthma or lower airways obstruction attacks. However, given the small total sample and wide confidence intervals, equivalence between the treatments cannot be claimed.

10.1002/14651858.CD005536.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3482

cochrane-simplification-train-3482

This is an update of a previous review. We included 27 studies with 3963 participants. The meta-analysis included 21 studies of 2721 participants. Seventeen studies compared multiple session early psychological intervention versus treatment as usual and four studies compared a multiple session early psychological intervention with active control condition. Low-certainty evidence indicated that multiple session early psychological interventions may be more effective than usual care in reducing PTSD diagnosis at three to six months' follow-up (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.93; I2 = 34%; studies = 5; participants = 758). However, there was no statistically significant difference post-treatment (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; studies = 5; participants = 556; very low-certainty evidence) or at seven to 12 months (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.49; studies = 1; participants = 132; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis indicated that there was no statistical difference in dropouts compared with usual care (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.95; I2 = 34%; studies = 11; participants = 1154; low-certainty evidence) .At the primary endpoint of three to six months, low-certainty evidence indicated no statistical difference between groups in reducing severity of PTSD (SMD –0.10, 95% CI –0.22 to 0.02; I2 = 34%; studies = 15; participants = 1921), depression (SMD –0.04, 95% CI –0.19 to 0.10; I2 = 6%; studies = 7; participants = 1009) or anxiety symptoms (SMD –0.05, 95% CI –0.19 to 0.10; I2 = 2%; studies = 6; participants = 945). No studies comparing an intervention and active control reported outcomes for PTSD diagnosis. Low-certainty evidence showed that interventions may be associated with a higher dropout rate than active control condition (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.34; studies = 2; participants = 425). At three to six months, low-certainty evidence indicated no statistical difference between interventions in terms of severity of PTSD symptoms (SMD –0.02, 95% CI –0.31 to 0.26; I2 = 43%; studies = 4; participants = 465), depression (SMD 0.04, 95% CI –0.16 to 0.23; I2 = 0%; studies = 2; participants = 409), anxiety (SMD 0.00, 95% CI –0.19 to 0.19; I2 = 0%; studies = 2; participants = 414) or quality of life (MD –0.03, 95% CI –0.06 to 0.00; studies = 1; participants = 239). None of the included studies reported on adverse events or use of health-related resources. While the review found some beneficial effects of multiple session early psychological interventions in the prevention of PTSD, the certainty of the evidence was low due to the high risk of bias in the included trials. The clear practice implication of this is that, at present, multiple session interventions aimed at everyone exposed to traumatic events cannot be recommended. There are a number of ongoing studies, demonstrating that this is a fast moving field of research. Future updates of this review will integrate the results of these new studies.

• We found low-certainty evidence that multiple session early psychological interventions may be more effective than treatment as usual in preventing PTSD diagnosis three to six months after receiving the intervention. • We found very low-certainty evidence that multiple session early psychological interventions may be neither more nor less effective than treatment as usual in preventing PTSD, either immediately after, or at seven to 12 months after, the intervention. We also found very low-certainty evidence that multiple session early psychological interventions may be neither more nor less effective than treatment as usual in reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms, either immediately or at subsequent points of follow-up. • We found low-certainty evidence that multiple session early psychological interventions may be associated with a higher dropout rate than other psychological interventions. • We found low-certainty evidence that multiple session early psychological interventions may be neither more nor less effective than other psychological interventions in diagnosing PTSD; reducing the severity of PTSD, depression and anxiety; or in maintaining the general functioning of participants receiving the intervention. • We found no studies that measured adverse effects. • We found no studies that measured use of health-related resources. The current evidence base is small. However, new studies are being conducted and future updates of this review will incorporate the results of these.

10.1002/14651858.CD006869.pub3

cochrane-simplification-train-3483

cochrane-simplification-train-3483

This updated review includes nine new studies, in total 26 studies with 28 comparisons and involving 2790 participants. No study of local paracervical versus general anaesthesia met our criteria. Ten studies compared local anaesthetic versus placebo. Paracervical local anaesthetic (PLA) reduced pain on cervical dilatation with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.37 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.58) and a relative risk (RR) of severe pain of 0.16 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.74). PLA also reduced abdominal pain during, but not after, uterine intervention (SMD 0.74, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.19); there was no evidence of any effect on postoperative back or shoulder pain. Comparisons against no treatment did not demonstrate any effect of PLA. Five studies compared paracervical block with uterosacral block, intracervical block, or intrauterine topical anaesthesia. Two of these studies showed no significant difference in pain during the procedure. Compared to intrauterine instillation, PLA slightly reduced severe pain (from 8.3 to 7.6 on a 10-point scale), which may be negligible. Six studies compared PLA with sedation. There were no statistically significant differences in pain during or after the procedure, postoperative analgesia requirement, adverse effects, patient satisfaction, and the operator's perception of analgesia. We performed risk of bias assessment using six domains and found that more than half of the included studies had low risk of bias. We found that no technique provided reliable pain control in the 26 included studies. Some studies reported that women experienced severe pain (mean scores of 7 to 9 out of 10) during uterine intervention, irrespective of the analgesic technique used. We concluded that the available evidence fails to show whether paracervical block is inferior, equivalent, or superior to alternative analgesic techniques in terms of efficacy and safety for women undergoing cervical dilatation and uterine interventions. We suggest that woman are likely to consider the rates and severity of pain during uterine interventions when performed awake to be unacceptable in the absence of neuraxial blockade, which are unaltered by paracervical block.

Cervical dilatation and uterine interventions (such as hysteroscopy, endometrial biopsies, fractional curettage, and suction terminations) can be performed without any analgesia or anaesthesia; with regional anaesthetic injections as with paracervical block; using oral or intravenous analgesics and sedatives; or under general anaesthesia. Many gynaecologists use paracervical block for uterine intervention but it is unclear how effective and safe this method is. We included nine new studies in this updated review with a total of 26 studies involving 2790 women undergoing uterine interventions. The women were randomly allocated to paracervical block or an alternative. We found that, statistically, women had significantly less pain during cervical dilatation and uterine intervention with paracervical block than with placebo injection (saline or water) but clinically this difference may be unimportant. Paracervical block had no effect in five uncontrolled studies. There was no evidence that paracervical block reduced pain compared to alternative regional anaesthetic methods or systemic analgesics and sedatives. There was little information on important side effects. After updating, this review found that no local anaesthetic technique prevented pain as well as one would expect from general anaesthesia.

10.1002/14651858.CD005056.pub3

cochrane-simplification-train-3484

cochrane-simplification-train-3484

We included 54 studies involving 2729 participants, most of which were of poor methodological quality. The studies evaluated endometrial biomarkers either in specific phases of the menstrual cycle or outside of it, and the studies tested the biomarkers either in menstrual fluid, in whole endometrial tissue or in separate endometrial components. Twenty-seven studies evaluated the diagnostic performance of 22 endometrial biomarkers for endometriosis. These were angiogenesis and growth factors (PROK-1), cell-adhesion molecules (integrins α3β1, α4β1, β1 and α6), DNA-repair molecules (hTERT), endometrial and mitochondrial proteome, hormonal markers (CYP19, 17βHSD2, ER-α, ER-β), inflammatory markers (IL-1R2), myogenic markers (caldesmon, CALD-1), neural markers (PGP 9.5, VIP, CGRP, SP, NPY, NF) and tumour markers (CA-125). Most of these biomarkers were assessed in single studies, whilst only data for PGP 9.5 and CYP19 were available for meta-analysis. These two biomarkers demonstrated significant diversity for the diagnostic estimates between the studies; however, the data were too limited to reliably determine the sources of heterogeneity. The mean sensitivities and specificities of PGP 9.5 (7 studies, 361 women) were 0.96 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.00) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.00), after excluding one outlier study, and for CYP19 (8 studies, 444 women), they were were 0.77 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.85) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 84), respectively. We could not statistically evaluate other biomarkers in a meaningful way. An additional 31 studies evaluated 77 biomarkers that showed no evidence of differences in expression levels between the groups of women with and without endometriosis. We could not statistically evaluate most of the biomarkers assessed in this review in a meaningful way. In view of the low quality of most of the included studies, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Although PGP 9.5 met the criteria for a replacement test, it demonstrated considerable inter study heterogeneity in diagnostic estimates, the source of which could not be determined. Several endometrial biomarkers, such as endometrial proteome, 17βHSD2, IL-1R2, caldesmon and other neural markers (VIP, CGRP, SP, NPY and combination of VIP, PGP 9.5 and SP) showed promising evidence of diagnostic accuracy, but there was insufficient or poor quality evidence for any clinical recommendations. Laparoscopy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of endometriosis, and using any non-invasive tests should only be undertaken in a research setting. We have also identified a number of biomarkers that demonstrated no diagnostic value for endometriosis. We recommend that researchers direct future studies towards biomarkers with high diagnostic potential in good quality diagnostic studies.

The evidence in this review is current to April 2015. We included 54 studies involving 2729 participants. All studies evaluated reproductive-aged women who were undertaking diagnostic surgery to investigate symptoms of endometriosis or for other indications. Twenty-six studies evaluated the role of 22 different biomarkers in diagnosing endometriosis, and 31 studies identified 77 additional biomarkers that had no value in differentiating between women with and without the disease. Only two of the assessed biomarkers, a neural fibre marker PGP 9.5 and hormonal marker CYP19, were assessed in sufficient number of studies to obtain meaningful results. PGP 9.5 identified endometriosis with enough accuracy to replace surgical diagnosis. Several additional biomarkers (endometrial proteome, 17βHSD2, IL-1R2, caldesmon and other neural markers) show promise in detecting endometriosis, but there are too few studies to be sure of their diagnostic value. The studies differed in how they were conducted, which groups of women were studied and how the surgery was undertaken. The reports were of low methodological quality, which is why readers cannot consider these results to be reliable unless confirmed in large, high quality studies. Overall, there is not enough evidence to recommend any endometrial test for use in clinical practice for the diagnosis of endometriosis. Further high quality research is necessary to accurately evaluate the diagnostic potential of the endometrial biomarkers for the diagnosis of endometriosis.

10.1002/14651858.CD012165

cochrane-simplification-train-3485

cochrane-simplification-train-3485

Thirteen randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. The studies demonstrated an initial improvement in respiratory status (improved oxygenation and decreased need for ventilator support). The meta-analysis supports a significant decrease in the risk of any air leak (typical relative risk 0.47, 95% CI 0.39, 0.58; typical risk difference -0.16, 95% CI -0.21, -0.12), pneumothorax (typical relative risk 0.42, 95% CI 0.34, 0.52; typical risk difference -0.17, 95% CI -0.21, -0.13), and a significant decrease in the risk of pulmonary interstitial emphysema (typical relative risk 0.45, 95% CI 0.37, 0.55; typical risk difference -0.20, 95% CI -0.25, -0.15). There is a significant decrease in the risk of neonatal mortality (typical relative risk 0.68, 95% CI 0.57, 0.82; typical risk difference -0.09, 95% CI -0.13, -0.05), a significant decrease in the risk of mortality prior to hospital discharge (typical relative risk 0.63, 95% CI 0.44, 0.90; typical risk difference -0.10, 95% CI -0.18, -0.03) and a significant decrease in the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) or death at 28 days of age (typical relative risk 0.83, 95% CI 0.77, 0.90; typical risk difference -0.11, 95 CI -0.16, -0.06). No differences are reported in the risk of patent ductus arteriosus, necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage, BPD or retinopathy of prematurity. Infants with established respiratory distress syndrome who receive animal derived surfactant extract treatment have a decreased risk of pneumothorax, a decreased risk of pulmonary interstitial emphysema, a decreased risk of mortality, and a decreased risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia or death.

A wide variety of surfactant products have been formulated and studied in clinical trials. These include synthetic surfactants and animal derived surfactant extracts. Animal derived surfactant extracts are obtained from animal or human sources. Trials of surfactant replacement have either tried to prevent the development of respiratory distress in high-risk premature infants or treat established respiratory distress in premature infants. Infants with established respiratory distress syndrome who receive animal derived surfactant extract treatment have a decreased risk of lung rupture (pneumothorax), a decreased risk of lung injury (pulmonary interstitial emphysema), a decreased risk of dying, and a decreased risk of chronic lung injury (bronchopulmonary dysplasia) or death.

10.1002/14651858.CD007836

cochrane-simplification-train-3486

cochrane-simplification-train-3486

Four studies enrolling a total of 179 participants with cystic fibrosis (143 (80%) were children aged 1 to 16 years) were included in this review. There was no study comparing a vaccine to a placebo or a whole virus vaccine to a subunit or split virus vaccine. Two studies compared an intranasal applied live vaccine to an intramuscular inactivated vaccine and the other two studies compared a split virus to a subunit vaccine and a virosome to a subunit vaccine (all intramuscular). The incidence of all reported adverse events was high depending on the type of influenza vaccine. The total adverse event rate ranged from 48 out of 201 participants (24%) for the intranasal live vaccine to 13 out of 30 participants (43%) for the split virus vaccine. With the limitation of a statistical low power there was no significant difference between the study vaccinations. None of the events were severe. All study influenza vaccinations generated a satisfactory serological antibody response. No study reported other clinically important benefits. There is currently no evidence from randomised studies that influenza vaccine given to people with cystic fibrosis is of benefit to them. There remains a need for a well-constructed clinical study, that assesses the effectiveness of influenza vaccination on important clinical outcome measures.

We searched for studies which compared different vaccines or compared vaccination to placebo. We were able to include four studies with 179 people in the review. Most (143) were under 16 years old. No study compared one vaccine to placebo. There were a high number of drop outs in two of the studies. Vaccination does result in an immune system response to the types of influenza used in the vaccine. However, this response may not result in protection against influenza infection or lung damage. There were a high number of adverse events, but none were serious or persistent. There is no evidence to show if regular influenza vaccine benefits people with cystic fibrosis.

10.1002/14651858.CD001753.pub3

cochrane-simplification-train-3487

cochrane-simplification-train-3487

We identified 24 studies that enrolled a total of 8112 participants. However, there was significant heterogeneity in the comparators used and the outcomes measured, which limited the ability to pool data. Many of the studies did not report sufficient information in their methods to allow judgment of their risk of bias. From the information that was reported, three of the studies had a high risk of selection bias and one was at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of the outcome assessors. None of the included studies reported the minimum clinically important difference for the outcomes that were measured. We have therefore reported results from the studies but have been unable to interpret whether differences were of clinical importance. The main findings of the review are as follows. Knowledge: There is low quality evidence that multimedia education was more effective than usual care (non-standardised education provided as part of usual clinical care) or no education (standardised mean difference (SMD) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to1.58, six studies with 817 participants). There was considerable statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 89%), however, all but one of the studies favoured the multimedia group. There is moderate quality evidence that multimedia education was not more effective at improving knowledge than control multimedia interventions (i.e. multimedia programs that do not provide information about the medication) (mean difference (MD) of knowledge scores 2.78%, 95% CI -1.48 to 7.0, two studies with 568 participants). There is moderate quality evidence that multimedia education was more effective when added to a co-intervention (written information or brief standardised instructions provided by a health professional) compared with the co-intervention alone (MD of knowledge scores 24.59%, 95% CI 22.34 to 26.83, two studies with 381 participants). Skill acquisition: There is moderate quality evidence that multimedia education was more effective than usual care or no education (MD of inhaler technique score 18.32%, 95% CI 11.92 to 24.73, two studies with 94 participants) and written education (risk ratio (RR) of improved inhaler technique 2.14, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.44, two studies with 164 participants). There is very low quality evidence that multimedia education was equally effective as education by a health professional (MD of inhaler technique score -1.01%, 95% CI -15.75 to 13.72, three studies with 130 participants). Compliance with medications: There is moderate quality evidence that there was no difference between multimedia education and usual care or no education (RR of complying 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08, two studies with 4552 participants). We could not determine the effect of multimedia education on other outcomes, including patient satisfaction, self-efficacy and health outcomes, due to an inadequate number of studies from which to draw conclusions. This review provides evidence that multimedia education about medications is more effective than usual care (non-standardised education provided by health professionals as part of usual clinical care) or no education, in improving both knowledge and skill acquisition. It also suggests that multimedia education is at least equivalent to other forms of education, including written education and education provided by a health professional. However, this finding is based on often low quality evidence from a small number of trials. Multimedia education about medications could therefore be considered as an adjunct to usual care but there is inadequate evidence to recommend it as a replacement for written education or education by a health professional. Multimedia education may be considered as an alternative to education provided by a health professional, particularly in settings where provision of detailed education by a health professional is not feasible. More studies evaluating multimedia educational interventions are required in order to increase confidence in the estimate of effect of the intervention. Conclusions regarding the effect of multimedia education were limited by the lack of information provided by study authors about the educational interventions, and variability in their content and quality. Studies testing educational interventions should provide detailed information about the interventions and comparators. Research is required to establish a framework that is specific for the evaluation of the quality of multimedia educational programs. Conclusions were also limited by the heterogeneity in the outcomes reported and the instruments used to measure them. Research is required to identify a core set of outcomes which should be measured when evaluating patient educational interventions. Future research should use consistent, reliable and validated outcome measures so that comparisons can be made between studies.

We found that multimedia education programs about medications are superior to no education or education provided as part of usual clinical care in improving patient knowledge. There was wide variability in the results from the six studies that compared multimedia education to usual care or no education. However, all but one of the six studies favoured multimedia education. We also found that multimedia education is superior to usual care or no education in improving skill levels. The review also suggested that multimedia was at least as effective as other forms of education, including written education or brief education from a health provider. However, these findings were based on a small number of studies, many of which were of low quality. Multimedia education did not improve compliance with medications (i.e. the degree to which a patient correctly follows advice about his or her medication) compared with usual care or no education. We could not determine the effect of multimedia education on other outcomes, such as patient satisfaction, self-efficacy (confidence in their ability to perform health-related tasks) and health outcomes. The review findings therefore suggests that multimedia education programs about medications could be used alongside usual care provided by health providers. There is not enough evidence to recommend it as a replacement for written education or education by a health professional. Multimedia education could be used instead of detailed education given by a health provider when it is not possible or practical for health professionals to provide this service. This review found that there were differences between the types of education provided to the control groups and what results were measured. This limited the ability to summarise results across studies, so most of the conclusions of this review were based on results from a small number of studies. More studies of multimedia educational programs are needed to make the results of this review more reliable.

10.1002/14651858.CD008416.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3488

cochrane-simplification-train-3488

We identified one multicenter (34 sites) phase III RCT involving 87 participants. The trial compared eculizumab versus placebo, and was conducted in the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia with 26 weeks of follow-up. This small trial had high risk of bias in many domains (attrition and selective reporting). It was sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. No patients died during the study. By using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (scores can range from 0 to 100, with higher scores on the global health status and functioning scales indicating improvement), the trial showed improvement in health-related quality of life in patients treated with eculizumab (mean difference (MD) 19.4, 95% CI 8.25 to 30.55; P = 0.0007; low quality of evidence). By using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue instrument (scores can range from 0 to 52, with higher scores indicating improvement in fatigue), the trial showed a reduction in fatigue (MD 10.4, 95% CI 9.97 to 10.83; P = 0.00001; moderate quality of evidence) in the eculizumab group compared with placebo. Eculizumab compared with placebo showed a greater proportion of patients with transfusion independence: 51% (22/43) versus 0% (0/44); risk ratio (RR) 46.02, 95% CI 2.88 to 735.53; P = 0.007; moderate quality of evidence; and withdrawal for any reason: 4.7% (2/43) versus 22.72% (10/44); RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.88; P = 0.03; moderate quality of evidence. Due to the low rate of events observed, the included trial did not show any difference between eculizumab and placebo in terms of serious adverse events: 9.3% (4/43) versus 20.4% (9/44); RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.37; P = 0.16; low quality of evidence. We did not observe any difference between intervention and placebo for the most frequent adverse events. One participant receiving placebo showed an episode of thrombosis. The trial did not assess overall survival, transformation to myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myelogenous leukemia, or development or recurrence of aplastic anemia on treatment. This review has detected an absence of evidence for eculizumab compared with placebo for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), in terms of overall survival, nonfatal thrombotic events, transformation to myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myelogenous leukemia, and development and recurrence of aplastic anemia on treatment. Current evidence indicates that compared with placebo, eculizumab increases health-related quality of life and increases transfusion independence. During the execution of the included trial, no patients died. Furthermore, the intervention seems to reduce fatigue and withdrawals for any reason. The safety profile of eculizumab is unclear. These conclusions are based on one small trial with risk of attrition and selective reporting bias. Therefore, prescription of eculizumab for treating patients with PNH can neither be supported nor rejected, unless new evidence from a large high quality trial alters this conclusion. Therefore, we urge the reader to interpret the trial results with much caution. Future trials on this issue should be conducted according to the SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement by independent investigators, and using the Foundation of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research recommendations.

We identified one study that included a limited number of patients comparing eculizumab with placebo. The study was published in 2006, and was conducted in the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia with 26 weeks of follow-up. No patients died during the performance of this single study. The study showed a moderate improvement in the quality of life in patients treated with eculizumab. In addition, eculizumab reduced fatigue and the number of patients that withdrew from the study for any reason. Eculizumab showed a higher proportion of patients with transfusion independence. There was no difference between eculizumab and placebo in terms of adverse events, probably due to the low rate of events observed during the study. The trial did not assess other relevant outcomes such as overall survival, transformation to myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myelogenous leukemia, or development or recurrence of aplastic anemia on treatment. The confidence in the results is moderate to low. The study had limitations in its design and execution, and was sponsored by the manufacturer of the drug that was assessed. Moreover, the limited number of patients included in the study led to imprecise results. Larger studies should provide more information about the effect of eculizumab in patients with paroxsymal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. This plain language summary is current as of May 2014.

10.1002/14651858.CD010340.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3489

cochrane-simplification-train-3489

Three trials, all classified at high risk of bias, contributed to this review (Miller 1961; BPSM 1995; Zivadinov 2001) resulting in a total of 183 participants (91 treated). Corticosteroid therapy did not reduce the risk of being worse at the end of follow-up (odds ratio [OR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26 to 1.02) but there was a substantial heterogeneity between studies (I2: 78.4%). I. v. periodic high dose methylprednisolone (MP) was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of disability progression at 5 years in relapsing-remitting (RR) MS (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.66), while oral continuous low dose prednisolone was not associated with any risk reduction in disability progression at 18 months (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.43 to 3.56). Risk of experiencing at least one exacerbation at end of follow-up was not significantly reduced with corticosteroid treatment (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.10 to 1.25). Only one study recorded adverse events: in one patient i. v. MP was discontinued after the fourth pulse when he developed acute glomerulonephritis; a second patient was removed from the study after the fifth i. v. MP pulse because of severe osteoporosis. There is no enough evidence that long-term corticosteroid treatment delays progression of long term disability in patients with MS. Since one study at high risk of bias showed that the administration of pulsed high dose i. v. MP is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of long term disability progression in patients with RR MS, an adequately powered, high quality RCT is needed to investigate this finding.

The reviewers found three studies addressing this issue. A meta-analysis showed a trend towards a beneficial effect of long-term corticosteroids on accumulation of disability; however only two small studies contributed to this result. It was not possible to reliably comment on the effect of long-term corticosteroids on the frequency of relapses. Side effects were poorly documented. Therefore rigorous randomised controlled trials of this treatment are warranted.

10.1002/14651858.CD006264.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3490

cochrane-simplification-train-3490

Two trials met criteria for an RCT of antenatal psychosocial assessment. One trial examined the impact of an antenatal tool (ALPHA) on clinician awareness of psychosocial risk, and the capacity of the antenatal ALPHA to predict women with elevated postnatal Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS) scores, finding a trend towards increased clinician awareness of 'high level' psychosocial risk where the ALPHA intervention had been used (relative risk (RR) 4.61 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 21.39). No differences between groups were seen for numbers of women with antenatal EDS scores, a score of greater than 9 being identified by ALPHA as of concern for depression (RR 0.69 95% CI 0.35 to 1.38); 139 providers. The other trial reported no differences in EPS scores greater than 12 at 16 weeks postpartum between the intervention (communication about the EDS scores with the woman and her healthcare providers plus a patient information booklet) and the standard care groups (RR 0.86 95% CI 0.61 to 1.21; 371 women). While the use of an antenatal psychosocial assessment may increase the clinician's awareness of psychosocial risk, neither of these small studies provides sufficient evidence that routine antenatal psychosocial assessment by itself leads to improved perinatal mental health outcomes. Further studies with better sample size and statistical power are required to further explore this important public health issue. It will also be important to examine outcomes up to one year postpartum not only for mother, but also infant and family.

The one study that met the criteria for this review randomised healthcare providers to either psychosocial assessment or routine care and involved a total of 273 women. The providers who assessed psychosocial factors were more likely than those giving routine care to identify psychosocial concerns and to rate the level of concern as high. They were also more likely to detect concerns about family violence. The trial did not look at the development of anxiety or depression in these women. Not all healthcare providers chose to take part in the trial and some dropped out, leaving only 48 of the original 185 approached. This could mean that providers who were less interested in this area of clinical practice did not participate and bias the findings toward better than average detection of psychosocial risk. Two studies are currently in progress looking at the impact of early postnatal psychosocial assessment on the prevalence of antenatal and postnatal anxiety and depression.

10.1002/14651858.CD005124.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3491

cochrane-simplification-train-3491

We identified 18 trials, which included 6407 participants. We found 12 of these studies in the literature search for this update. Eight studies included a total of 2728 participants with painful diabetic neuropathy and six studies involved 2249 participants with fibromyalgia. Three studies included participants with depression and painful physical symptoms and one included participants with central neuropathic pain. Studies were mostly at low risk of bias, although significant drop outs, imputation methods and almost every study being performed or sponsored by the drug manufacturer add to the risk of bias in some domains. Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is effective in treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the short term, with a risk ratio (RR) for ≥ 50% pain reduction at 12 weeks of 1.73 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.08). The related NNTB is 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is also effective for fibromyalgia over 12 weeks (RR for ≥ 50% reduction in pain 1.57, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.06; NNTB 8, 95% CI 4 to 21) and over 28 weeks (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.27) as well as for painful physical symptoms in depression (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.59; NNTB 8, 95% CI 5 to 14). There was no effect on central neuropathic pain in a single, small, high quality trial. In all conditions, adverse events were common in both treatment and placebo arms but more common in the treatment arm, with a dose-dependent effect. Most adverse effects were minor, but 12.6% of participants stopped the drug due to adverse effects. Serious adverse events were rare. There is adequate amounts of moderate quality evidence from eight studies performed by the manufacturers of duloxetine that doses of 60 mg and 120 mg daily are efficacious for treating pain in diabetic peripheral neuropathy but lower daily doses are not. Further trials are not required. In fibromyalgia, there is lower quality evidence that duloxetine is effective at similar doses to those used in diabetic peripheral neuropathy and with a similar magnitude of effect. The effect in fibromyalgia may be achieved through a greater improvement in mental symptoms than in somatic physical pain. There is low to moderate quality evidence that pain relief is also achieved in pain associated with depressive symptoms, but the NNTB of 8 in fibromyalgia and depression is not an indication of substantial efficacy. More trials (preferably independent investigator led studies) in these indications are required to reach an optimal information size to make convincing determinations of efficacy. Minor side effects are common and more common with duloxetine 60 mg and particularly with 120 mg daily, than 20 mg daily, but serious side effects are rare. Improved direct comparisons of duloxetine with other antidepressants and with other drugs, such as pregabalin, that have already been shown to be efficacious in neuropathic pain would be appropriate. Unbiased economic comparisons would further help decision making, but no high quality study includes economic data.

We looked at all the published scientific literature and found 18 trials, involving a total of 6407 participants, that were of sufficient quality to include in this review. Eight trials tested the effect of duloxetine on painful diabetic neuropathy and six on the pain of fibromyalgia. Three trials treated painful physical symptoms associated with depression and one small study investigated duloxetine for the pain from strokes or diseases of the spinal cord (central pain). The usual dose of duloxetine is 60 mg. At this dose, there was moderate quality evidence that duloxetine reduced pain in both painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy and fibromyalgia. In diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain, a 50% or better improvement with duloxetine 60 mg per day was just over one and a half times more likely than with placebo. Another way of saying this is that five people with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy had to receive duloxetine to achieve a 50% or better response in one person. The effect on fibromyalgia was similar but the number needed to treat for one person to improve by 50% or more was eight. On the basis of a single study it is not possible to determine if a dose of 20 mg is effective, and 120 mg was no more effective than 60 mg. We calculated that for diabetic neuropathy there have been enough trials to draw these conclusions and no more trials are needed. In fibromyalgia and the painful symptoms associated with depression, more trials are required to make convincing statements about the effectiveness of duloxetine. Most people taking duloxetine will have at least one side effect. These are mostly minor and the most common are feeling sick, being too awake or too sleepy, headache, dry mouth, constipation or dizziness. About one in six people stop duloxetine because of side effects. Serious problems caused by duloxetine are very rare. Although duloxetine is beneficial in the treatment of neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia there is little evidence from trials comparing duloxetine to other antidepressant drugs as to which is better. We have concluded that duloxetine is useful for treating pain caused by diabetic neuropathy and probably fibromyalgia. The information in this review is up to date to November 2013, the most recent search of the literature.

10.1002/14651858.CD007115.pub3

cochrane-simplification-train-3492

cochrane-simplification-train-3492

We included 11 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 2062 participants and 1537 in the relevant arms for this review. There was an overall survival benefit for HGG participants receiving postoperative radiotherapy compared to the participants receiving postoperative supportive care. For the four pooled RCTs (397 participants), the overall hazard ratio (HR) for survival was 2.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 2.55, P < 0.00001), moderate GRADE quality evidence favouring postoperative radiotherapy. Although these trials may not have completely reported adverse effects, they did not note any significant toxicity attributable to radiation. Progression free survival and quality of life could not be pooled due to lack of data. Overall survival was similar between hypofractionated versus conventional radiotherapy in five trials (943 participants), where the HR was 0.95 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.17, P = 0.63), very low GRADE quality evidence. The trials reported that hypofractionated and conventional radiotherapy were well tolerated with mild acute adverse effects. These trials only reported one patient in the hypofractionated arm developing symptomatic radiation necrosis that required surgery. Progression free survival and quality of life could not be pooled due to the lack of data. Overall survival was also similar between hypofractionated versus conventional radiotherapy in the subset of two trials (293 participants) which included 60 years and older participants with glioblastoma. For this category, the HR was 1.16 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.46, P = 0.21), high GRADE quality evidence. There were two trials which compared hyperfractionated radiation therapy versus conventional radiation and one trial which compared accelerated radiation therapy versus conventional radiation. However, the results could not be pooled. The conventionally fractionated radiation therapy regimens were 4500 to 6000 cGy given in 180 to 200 cGy daily fractions, over 5 to 6 weeks. All these trials generally included participants with World Health Organization (WHO) performance status from 0 to 2 and Karnofsky performance status of 50 and higher. The risk of selection bias was generally low among these randomized trials. The number of participants lost to follow-up for the outcome of overall survival was low. Attrition, performance, detection and reporting bias for the outcome of overall survival was low. There was unclear attrition, performance, detection and reporting bias relating to the outcomes of adverse effects, progression free survival and quality of life. Postoperative conventional daily radiotherapy improves survival for adults with good performance status and HGG as compared to no postoperative radiotherapy. Hypofractionated radiation therapy has similar efficacy for survival as compared to conventional radiotherapy, particularly for individuals aged 60 and older with glioblastoma. There is insufficient data regarding hyperfractionation versus conventionally fractionated radiation (without chemotherapy) and for accelerated radiation versus conventionally fractionated radiation (without chemotherapy). There are HGG subsets who have poor prognosis even with treatment (e.g. glioblastoma histology, older age and poor performance status). These poor prognosis HGG individuals have generally been excluded from the randomised trials based on poor performance status. No randomised trial has compared comfort measures or best supportive care with an active intervention using radiotherapy or chemotherapy in these poor prognosis patients.

We found 11 trials (1537 participants in the relevant arms for this review) that met the criteria for our review. People with a poor prognosis generally were not eligible for entry into the randomised trials based on their poor level of health. There was an overall survival benefit for HGG participants receiving postoperative conventional radiotherapy compared to the participants receiving supportive care after surgery. Hypofractionated radiation therapy has similar efficacy for survival as compared to conventional radiotherapy, particularly for individuals aged 60 and older with glioblastoma. There were no clear differences in side effects (adverse effects) between these different treatment groups. There was insufficient data regarding other outcomes, namely progression-free survival and quality of life between these different treatment groups. There is insufficient data regarding the outcomes of survival, adverse effects, progression free survival and quality of life for hyperfractionation versus conventionally fractionated radiation and for accelerated radiation versus conventionally fractionated radiation. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to high. Some of the trials were at a higher risk of bias due to missing details regarding how they divided participants into treatment groups, how many patients were lost to follow-up and possible selective reporting of outcomes such as adverse effects. Only 5 out of the 11 included trials were published after the year 2000. The majority of the trials included in the meta-analysis were published before 2000 and are now out of date. These older trials did not distinguish between the various subtypes of HGG, and they used outdated radiotherapy techniques such as whole brain radiotherapy rather than local radiotherapy (targeted only to the tumour and not the whole brain). Postoperative conventional daily radiotherapy improves survival for adults with good functional well-being and HGG compared to no postoperative radiotherapy. Hypofractionated radiation therapy has similar efficacy for survival as compared to conventional radiotherapy, particularly for individuals aged 60 and older with glioblastoma.

10.1002/14651858.CD011475.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3493

cochrane-simplification-train-3493

We considered eight RCTs, including 332 participants, to be eligible for inclusion in the review. These trials were homogeneous and the overall risk of bias low. Five studies, in a total of 235 participants compared IVIg against placebo. One trial with 20 participants compared IVIg with plasma exchange, one trial compared IVIg with prednisolone in 32 participants, and one trial, newly included at this update, compared IVIg with intravenous methylprednisolone in 46 participants. A significantly higher proportion of participants improved in disability within one month after IVIg treatment as compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 3.36; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 3.03 (95% CI 2.33 to 4.55), high quality evidence). Whether all these improvements are equally clinically relevant cannot be deduced from this analysis because each trial used different disability scales and definitions of significant improvement. In three trials, including 84 participants, the disability score could be transformed to the modified Rankin score, on which improvement of one point after IVIg treatment compared to placebo was barely significant (RR 2.40, 95% CI 0.98 to 5.83) (moderate quality evidence). Only one placebo-controlled study included in this review had a long-term follow-up. The results of this study suggest that IVIg improves disability more than placebo over 24 and 48 weeks. The mean disability score revealed no significant difference between IVIg and plasma exchange at six weeks (moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference in improvement in disability on prednisolone compared with IVIg after two or six weeks, or on methylprednisolone compared to IVIg after two weeks or six months (moderate quality evidence). There were no statistically significant differences in frequencies of side effects between the three types of treatment for which data were available (IVg versus placebo or steroids). (moderate or high quality evidence) Mild and transient adverse events were found in 49% of participants treated with IVIg, while serious adverse events were found in six per cent. The evidence from RCTs shows that IVIg improves disability for at least two to six weeks compared with placebo, with an NNTB of three. During this period it has similar efficacy to plasma exchange, oral prednisolone and intravenous methylprednisolone. In one large trial, the benefit of IVIg persisted for 24 and possibly 48 weeks. Further research is needed to compare the long-term benefits as well as side effects of IVIg with other treatments.

Eight randomised controlled trials including 332 participants with CIDP were eligible for this review. These compared IVIg with placebo (dummy treatment), plasma exchange, or steroid drugs. We found five randomised trials which together prove that IVIg improves disability more than placebo (dummy treatment). The results showed that three people would need to be treated for one person to improve. In the three trials that compared IVIg with other treatments, results with IVIg were similar to plasma exchange, oral prednisolone or intravenous methylprednisolone. The evidence was of moderate or high quality. In this review, there were mild and short-term side effects in around half of those who received IVIg. Six per cent of those treated with IVIg had serious side effects, which is a similar rate as with plasma exchange or corticosteroids. Each trial defined improvement in its own way and the trials used different measurement scales, so it is difficult to relate them to changes in the clinical condition of people with CIDP. Only one of the studies that compared IVIg with placebo had a long-term follow-up. It suggested that IVIg improves disability more than placebo over 24 weeks and possibly 48 weeks. Further research is needed to compare the long-term benefits as well as side effects of IVIg with other treatments. The most recent search for studies was in December 2012 and we updated the review with the results of one additional trial.

10.1002/14651858.CD001797.pub3

cochrane-simplification-train-3494

cochrane-simplification-train-3494

We included two RCTs, seven CBA studies and two ITS studies. Nine studies with 7820 participants evaluated the screening process of pre-employment examinations as a whole, and two studies with 2164 participants evaluated the measures to mitigate the risks found following the screening process. The studies were too heterogeneous for statistical pooling of results. We rated the quality of the evidence for all outcomes as very low quality. The two new CBA studies both used historical controls and both had a high risk of bias. Of those studies that evaluated the screening process, there is very low quality evidence based on one RCT that a general examination for light duty work may not reduce the risk for sick leave (mean difference (MD) -0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to 0.29). For army recruits, there is very low quality evidence based on one CBA study that there is a positive effect on fitness for duty after 12 months follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.85). We found inconsistent evidence of an effect of job-focused pre-employment examinations on the risk of musculoskeletal injuries in comparison with general or no pre-employment examination based on one RCT with high risk of bias, and four CBA studies. There is very low quality evidence based on one ITS study that incorporation of a bronchial challenge test may decrease occupational asthma (trend change -2.6, 95% CI -3.6 to -1.5) compared to a general pre-employment examination with lung function tests. Pre-employment examinations may also result in a rejection of the applicant for the new job. In six studies, the rates of rejecting job applicants increased because of the studied examinations , on average, from 2% to 35%, but not in one study. There is very low quality evidence based on two CBA studies that risk mitigation among applicants considered not fit for work at the pre-employment examination may result in a similar risk of work-related musculoskeletal injury during follow-up compared to workers considered fit for work at the health examination. There is very low quality evidence that a general examination for light duty work may not reduce the risk for sick leave, but may have a positive effect on fitness for duty for army recruits after 12 months follow-up. There is inconsistent evidence of an effect of job-focused pre-employment examinations on the risk of musculoskeletal injuries in comparison with general or no pre-employment examination. There is very low quality evidence that incorporation of a bronchial challenge test may decrease occupational asthma compared to a general pre-employment examination with lung function tests. Pre-employment examinations may result in an increase of rejecting job applicants in six out of seven studies. Risk mitigation based on the result of pre-employment examinations may be effective in reducing an increased risk for occupational injuries based on very low quality evidence. This evidence supports the current policy to restrict pre-employment examinations to only job-specific examinations. Better quality evaluation studies on pre-employment examinations are necessary, including the evaluation of the benefits of risk mitigation, given the effect on health and on the financial situation for those employees who do not pass the pre-employment examination.

One of the included studies found that a general examination did not reduce sick leave among light duty workers compared to no intervention. However, another study found that army recruits were more fit for duty 12 months after a health examination. Results were inconsistent in five studies that compared job-focused pre-employment examinations with no health examination or with a general health examination. Pre-employment examinations may also result in the rejection of a job applicant. In six studies the rates of rejecting job applicants because of health examinations increased, on average, from 2% to 35%, but not in one study. Two of the included 11 studies (including 2164 people) compared job applicants that were considered fit during the health examination to those who received particular recommendations to address health-related issues based on the health examination. Both studies reported no difference in musculoskeletal injury rates between groups during follow-up. This means that job applicants were able to take care of the health problems identified during their health examinations. We rated all studied comparisons providing very low quality evidence. Health examinations that focus on health risks of particular jobs may be effective. Adequately dealing with potential health risks by changing work tasks or physical fitness training may also be effective. We need more and better quality evaluation studies. Not allowing people to work in certain jobs may have effects on their health. It also costs them money. Future research should assess both.

10.1002/14651858.CD008881.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3495

cochrane-simplification-train-3495

Only one eligible study, involving 21 participants, was included. The study compared platelet-rich therapy and allogenic bone graft with allogenic bone graft alone in patients undergoing corrective osteotomy for medial compartment osteoarthrosis of the knee. The risk of bias associated with this study was substantial. There was no significant difference in patient-reported or clinician-assessed functional outcome scores between groups at one year. There was a statistically significant benefit from platelet-rich therapy in the proportion of bones that were united at one year (8/9 versus 3/9; RR 2.67; 95% CI 1.03 to 6.91). This benefit, however, was not maintained when assuming poor outcomes for participants who were lost to follow-up (8/11 versus 3/10; RR 2.42; 95% CI 0.88 to 6.68). One adverse event was reported in a participant receiving platelet-rich therapy. One other eligible study involving hip fracture patients is currently underway. While a potential benefit of platelet-rich therapies to augment long bone healing in adults cannot be ruled out, the currently available evidence from a single trial is insufficient to support the routine use of this intervention in clinical practice. Future trials should focus on reporting patient-reported functional outcomes from all trial participants for a minimum follow-up of one year.

Only one study, involving 21 participants, was included in this review. The study compared PRT and bone graft versus bone graft alone (control) in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee who had surgery where a wedge of bone was cut (osteotomy) from their tibia (shin bone) in order to change the pattern of weight bearing on the knee. As in a fracture, the time for the bone to heal is an important factor in determining recovery after an osteotomy. The study found no difference between the PRT and control groups in patient-reported or clinician-assessed functional outcomes at one year. However, based on radiographic (x-ray) measures of bone healing, the study found a higher proportion of bones had healed by one year in those participants who had completed the study. One adverse event was reported in a participant receiving platelet-rich therapy From the limited evidence that is currently available, the review found that PRT had no effect on functional outcomes. PRT may be beneficial in accelerating and improving the incidence of union in osteotomies. The only complication reported was not necessarily related to the PRT treatment. No data were available regarding PRT in the treatment of acute fractures, non-united fractures or large bony defects. One other study involving hip fracture patients is currently underway, and will provide further evidence concerning the use of PRT in the future.

10.1002/14651858.CD009496.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3496

cochrane-simplification-train-3496

We included 7 RCTs with a total of 923 participants: 529 randomised to an intervention and 394 to a comparator. The number of participants per trial ranged from 18 to 475. Six trials were parallel RCTs, and one was a cluster RCT. Two trials were three-arm trials, each comparing two interventions with a control group. The interventions and comparators in the trials varied. We categorised the comparisons into two groups: multicomponent interventions and dietary interventions. The overall quality of the evidence was low or very low, and six trials had a high risk of bias on individual 'Risk of bias' criteria. The children in the included trials were followed up for between six months and three years. In trials comparing a multicomponent intervention with usual care, enhanced usual care, or information control, we found a greater reduction in body mass index (BMI) z score in the intervention groups at the end of the intervention (6 to 12 months): mean difference (MD) -0.3 units (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.4 to -0.2); P < 0.00001; 210 participants; 4 trials; low-quality evidence, at 12 to 18 months' follow-up: MD -0.4 units (95% CI -0.6 to -0.2); P = 0.0001; 202 participants; 4 trials; low-quality evidence, and at 2 years' follow-up: MD -0.3 units (95% CI -0.4 to -0.1); 96 participants; 1 trial; low-quality evidence. One trial stated that no adverse events were reported; the other trials did not report on adverse events. Three trials reported health-related quality of life and found improvements in some, but not all, aspects. Other outcomes, such as behaviour change and parent-child relationship, were inconsistently measured. One three-arm trial of very low-quality evidence comparing two types of diet with control found that both the dairy-rich diet (BMI z score change MD -0.1 units (95% CI -0.11 to -0.09); P < 0.0001; 59 participants) and energy-restricted diet (BMI z score change MD -0.1 units (95% CI -0.11 to -0.09); P < 0.0001; 57 participants) resulted in greater reduction in BMI than the comparator at the end of the intervention period, but only the dairy-rich diet maintained this at 36 months' follow-up (BMI z score change in MD -0.7 units (95% CI -0.71 to -0.69); P < 0.0001; 52 participants). The energy-restricted diet had a worse BMI outcome than control at this follow-up (BMI z score change MD 0.1 units (95% CI 0.09 to 0.11); P < 0.0001; 47 participants). There was no substantial difference in mean daily energy expenditure between groups. Health-related quality of life, adverse effects, participant views, and parenting were not measured. No trial reported on all-cause mortality, morbidity, or socioeconomic effects. All results should be interpreted cautiously due to their low quality and heterogeneous interventions and comparators. Muticomponent interventions appear to be an effective treatment option for overweight or obese preschool children up to the age of 6 years. However, the current evidence is limited, and most trials had a high risk of bias. Most trials did not measure adverse events. We have identified four ongoing trials that we will include in future updates of this review. The role of dietary interventions is more equivocal, with one trial suggesting that dairy interventions may be effective in the longer term, but not energy-restricted diets. This trial also had a high risk of bias.

We found 7 randomised controlled trials (clinical studies where people are randomly put into one of two or more treatment groups) comparing diet, physical activity, and behavioural (where habits are changed or improved) treatments (interventions) to a variety of control groups (who did not receive treatment) delivered to 923 overweight or obese preschool children up to the age of 6 years. We grouped the studies by the type of intervention. Our systematic review reported on the effects of multicomponent interventions and dietary interventions compared with no intervention, 'usual care', enhanced usual care, or some other therapy if it was also delivered in the intervention arm. The children in the included studies were monitored (called follow-up) for between six months and three years. Most studies reported the body mass index (BMI) z score: BMI is a measure of body fat and is calculated by dividing weight (in kilograms) by the square of the body height measured in metres (kg/m²). In children, BMI is often measured in a way that takes into account sex, weight, and height as children grow older (BMI z score). We summarised the results of 4 trials in 202 children reporting the BMI z score, which on average was 0.4 units lower in the multicomponent intervention groups compared with the control groups. Lower units indicate more weight loss. For example, a 5-year-old girl with a body height of 110 cm and a body weight of 32 kg has a BMI of 26.4 and a BMI z score of 2.99. If this girl loses 2 kg weight within a year (and gained 1 cm in height), she would have reduced her BMI z score by approx. 0.4 units (her BMI would be 24.3 and her BMI z score 2.58). Accordingly, the average change in weight in the multicomponent interventions was 2.8 kg lower than in the control groups. Other effects of the interventions, such as improvements in health-related quality of life or evaluation of the parent-child relationship, were less clear, and most studies did not measure adverse events. No study investigated death from any cause, morbidity, or socioeconomic effects. One study found that BMI z score reduction was greater at the end of both dairy-rich and energy-restricted dietary interventions compared with a healthy lifestyle education only. However, only the dairy-rich diet continued to show benefits two to three years later, whereas the energy-restricted diet group had a greater increase in BMI z score than the control group. This evidence is up to date as of March 2015. The overall quality of the evidence was low or very low, mainly because there were just a few studies per outcome measurement or the number of the included children was small. In addition, many children left the studies before they had finished.

10.1002/14651858.CD012105

cochrane-simplification-train-3497

cochrane-simplification-train-3497

We included three RCTs in this review. The studies reported mean logMAR visual acuity achieved. Mean difference in visual acuity was calculated. When comparing conventional part-time occlusion (with any necessary glasses), PEDIG 2006 reported that this treatment was more beneficial than glasses alone for strabismic amblyopia; the mean difference between groups was -0.18 LogMAR (statistically significant 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.32 to -0.04). Supplementing occlusion therapy with near activities may produce a better visual outcome compared to non-near activities after four weeks of treatment (PEDIG 2005). The results of the pilot study showed mean difference between groups was -0.17 LogMAR (95% CI -0.53 to 0.19). Results from a larger RCT (PEDIG 2008) are now available, showing that supplementing occlusion therapy with near activities may produce a better visual outcome after eight weeks of treatment; the mean difference between groups was -0.02 LogMAR (95% CI -0.10 to 0.06). One further article ia awaiting assessment as in its current format there is insufficient information to include (Alotaibi 2012). Occlusion, whilst wearing necessary refractive correction, appears to be more effective than refractive correction alone in the treatment of strabismic amblyopia. The benefit of combining near activities with occlusion is unproven. No RCTs were found that assessed the role of either partial occlusion or optical penalisation to refractive correction for strabismic amblyopia.

Key results: The results of one of these trials indicate that patching therapy combined with any necessary glasses is more effective than glasses alone in the treatment of this condition. Two of the trials analysed the role of adding near activities to supplement patching therapy. These trials suggest there may be benefit to adding near activities to prescribed occlusion regime. No trial examining the role of optical penalisation (altering glasses strength) or using partial occlusion (frosted lens opposed to a patch) was found. The effectiveness of optical penalisation and partial occlusion for the treatment of strabismic amblyopia is unknown. Quality of the evidence: The quality of the available evidence is high.

10.1002/14651858.CD006461.pub4

cochrane-simplification-train-3498

cochrane-simplification-train-3498

We included nine studies involving 210 participants. Out of these, four studies (involving 61 residents) assessed technical skills in the operating theatre (primary outcomes). Five studies (comprising 149 residents and medical students) assessed technical skills in controlled environments (secondary outcomes). The majority of the trials were at high risk of bias. We assessed the GRADE quality of evidence for most outcomes across studies as 'low'. Operating theatre environment (primary outcomes) In the operating theatre, there were no studies that examined two of three primary outcomes: real world patient outcomes and acquisition of non-technical skills. The third primary outcome (technical skills in the operating theatre) was evaluated in two studies comparing virtual reality endoscopic sinus surgery training with conventional training. In one study, psychomotor skill (which relates to operative technique or the physical co-ordination associated with instrument handling) was assessed on a 10-point scale. A second study evaluated the procedural outcome of time-on-task. The virtual reality group performance was significantly better, with a better psychomotor score (mean difference (MD) 3.20, 95% CI 2.05 to 4.34; 10-point scale) and a shorter time taken to complete the operation (MD -5.50 minutes, 95% CI -9.97 to -1.03). Controlled training environments (secondary outcomes) In a controlled environment five studies evaluated the technical skills of surgical trainees (one study) and medical students (three studies). One study was excluded from the analysis. Surgical trainees: One study (80 participants) evaluated the technical performance of surgical trainees during temporal bone surgery, where the outcome was the quality of the final dissection. There was no difference in the end-product scores between virtual reality and cadaveric temporal bone training. Medical students: Two other studies (40 participants) evaluated technical skills achieved by medical students in the temporal bone laboratory. Learners' knowledge of the flow of the operative procedure (procedural score) was better after virtual reality than conventional training (SMD 1.11, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.79). There was also a significant difference in end-product score between the virtual reality and conventional training groups (SMD 2.60, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.49). One study (17 participants) revealed that medical students acquired anatomical knowledge (on a scale of 0 to 10) better during virtual reality than during conventional training (MD 4.3, 95% CI 2.05 to 6.55). No studies in a controlled training environment assessed non-technical skills. There is limited evidence to support the inclusion of virtual reality surgical simulation into surgical training programmes, on the basis that it can allow trainees to develop technical skills that are at least as good as those achieved through conventional training. Further investigations are required to determine whether virtual reality training is associated with better real world outcomes for patients and the development of non-technical skills. Virtual reality simulation may be considered as an additional learning tool for medical students.

We included nine studies involving 210 ear, nose and throat residents and medical students. Four studies compared virtual reality endoscopic sinus surgery training with conventional training; one study compared virtual reality endoscopic dacryocystorhinostomy training versus textbook reading; two studies compared virtual reality temporal bone dissection training versus cadaveric temporal bone dissection training and two studies compared virtual reality temporal bone dissection training versus a small group tutorial with temporal bone models. None of the studies were funded by an agency with a commercial interest in the results of the studies. None of the studies evaluated whether training in virtual reality influences patient outcomes or non-technical skills. There is evidence to support the introduction of virtual reality into surgical training on the basis that the technical skills acquired by this method are as good as, or better than, those learnt through conventional training. Virtual reality can be added to the extensive range of activities that constitutes a comprehensive surgical training programme. Virtual reality simulation should also be considered as an additional learning tool for medical students. We assessed the quality of the evidence in this review for most outcomes as 'low' (using the GRADE system). The key reasons for this were issues related to study design. The evidence in this review is up to date to 27 July 2015.

10.1002/14651858.CD010198.pub2

cochrane-simplification-train-3499

cochrane-simplification-train-3499

We included 13 small RCTs (479 participants) in this review (at least 274 participants were women, with 118 parturients after a lumbar puncture for regional anaesthesia). In the original version of this Cochrane review, only seven small RCTs (200 participants) were included. Pharmacological drugs assessed were oral and intravenous caffeine, subcutaneous sumatriptan, oral gabapentin, oral pregabalin, oral theophylline, intravenous hydrocortisone, intravenous cosyntropin and intramuscular adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH). Two RCTs reported data for PDPH persistence of any severity at follow-up (primary outcome). Caffeine reduced the number of participants with PDPH at one to two hours when compared to placebo. Treatment with caffeine also decreased the need for a conservative supplementary therapeutic option. Treatment with gabapentin resulted in better visual analogue scale (VAS) scores after one, two, three and four days when compared with placebo and also when compared with ergotamine plus caffeine at two, three and four days. Treatment with hydrocortisone plus conventional treatment showed better VAS scores at six, 24 and 48 hours when compared with conventional treatment alone and also when compared with placebo. Treatment with theophylline showed better VAS scores compared with acetaminophen at two, six and 12 hours and also compared with conservative treatment at eight, 16 and 24 hours. Theophylline also showed a lower mean "sum of pain" when compared with placebo. Sumatriptan and ACTH did not show any relevant effect for this outcome. Theophylline resulted in a higher proportion of participants reporting an improvement in pain scores when compared with conservative treatment. There were no clinically significant drug adverse events. The rest of the outcomes were not reported by the included RCTs or did not show any relevant effect. None of the new included studies have provided additional information to change the conclusions of the last published version of the original Cochrane review. Caffeine has shown effectiveness for treating PDPH, decreasing the proportion of participants with PDPH persistence and those requiring supplementary interventions, when compared with placebo. Gabapentin, hydrocortisone and theophylline have been shown to decrease pain severity scores. Theophylline has also been shown to increase the proportion of participants that report an improvement in pain scores when compared with conventional treatment. There is a lack of conclusive evidence for the other drugs assessed (sumatriptan, adrenocorticotropic hormone, pregabalin and cosyntropin). These conclusions should be interpreted with caution, due to the lack of information to allow correct appraisal of risk of bias, the small sample sizes of the studies and also their limited generalisability, as nearly half of the participants were postpartum women in their 30s.

This is an updated review, and we searched for new trials in July 2014. We included 13 small randomised clinical trials (RCTs), with a total of 479 participants. The trials assessed eight drugs: caffeine, sumatriptan, gabapentin, hydrocortisone, theophylline, adrenocorticotropic hormone, pregabalin and cosyntropin. Caffeine proved to be effective in decreasing the number of people with PDPH and those requiring extra drugs (2 or 3 in 10 with caffeine compared to 9 in 10 with placebo). Gabapentin, theophylline and hydrocortisone also proved to be effective, relieving pain better than placebo or conventional treatment alone. More people had better pain relief with theophylline (9 in 10 with theophylline compared to 4 in 10 with conventional treatment). No important side effects of these drugs were reported. The quality of the studies was difficult to assess due to the lack of information available. Conclusions should be interpreted with caution.

10.1002/14651858.CD007887.pub3