ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) explanation and elaboration: Guidance and examples to support reporting consensus methods.

BACKGROUND: When research evidence is limited, inconsistent, or absent, healthcare decisions and policies need to be based on consensus amongst interested stakeholders. In these processes, the knowledge, experience, and expertise of health professionals, researchers, policymakers, and the public are systematically collected and synthesised to reach agreed clinical recommendations and/or priorities. However, despite the influence of consensus exercises, the methods used to achieve agreement are often poorly reported. The ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) guideline was developed to help report any consensus methods used in biomedical research, regardless of the health field, techniques used, or application. This explanatory document facilitates the use of the ACCORD checklist. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This paper was built collaboratively based on classic and contemporary literature on consensus methods and publications reporting their use. For each ACCORD checklist item, this explanation and elaboration document unpacks the pieces of information that should be reported and provides a rationale on why it is essential to describe them in detail. Furthermore, this document offers a glossary of terms used in consensus exercises to clarify the meaning of common terms used across consensus methods, to promote uniformity, and to support understanding for consumers who read consensus statements, position statements, or clinical practice guidelines. The items are followed by examples of reporting items from the ACCORD guideline, in text, tables and figures. CONCLUSIONS: The ACCORD materials - including the reporting guideline and this explanation and elaboration document - can be used by anyone reporting a consensus exercise used in the context of health research. As a reporting guideline, ACCORD helps researchers to be transparent about the materials, resources (both human and financial), and procedures used in their investigations so readers can judge the trustworthiness and applicability of their results/recommendations.

ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi.

BACKGROUND: In biomedical research, it is often desirable to seek consensus among individuals who have differing perspectives and experience. This is important when evidence is emerging, inconsistent, limited, or absent. Even when research evidence is abundant, clinical recommendations, policy decisions, and priority-setting may still require agreement from multiple, sometimes ideologically opposed parties. Despite their prominence and influence on key decisions, consensus methods are often poorly reported. Our aim was to develop the first reporting guideline dedicated to and applicable to all consensus methods used in biomedical research regardless of the objective of the consensus process, called ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document). METHODS AND FINDINGS: We followed methodology recommended by the EQUATOR Network for the development of reporting guidelines: a systematic review was followed by a Delphi process and meetings to finalize the ACCORD checklist. The preliminary checklist was drawn from the systematic review of existing literature on the quality of reporting of consensus methods and suggestions from the Steering Committee. A Delphi panel (n = 72) was recruited with representation from 6 continents and a broad range of experience, including clinical, research, policy, and patient perspectives. The 3 rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 58, 54, and 51 panelists. The preliminary checklist of 56 items was refined to a final checklist of 35 items relating to the article title (n = 1), introduction (n = 3), methods (n = 21), results (n = 5), discussion (n = 2), and other information (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: The ACCORD checklist is the first reporting guideline applicable to all consensus-based studies. It will support authors in writing accurate, detailed manuscripts, thereby improving the completeness and transparency of reporting and providing readers with clarity regarding the methods used to reach agreement. Furthermore, the checklist will make the rigor of the consensus methods used to guide the recommendations clear for readers. Reporting consensus studies with greater clarity and transparency may enhance trust in the recommendations made by consensus panels.

Frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in dental patients.

BACKGROUND: While many studies have reported on occupational allergic contact dermatitis amongst dental personnel, studies on the relevance of patch testing in dental patients are scarce. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in patients with intra- and perioral complaints. METHODS: A total of 360 patients with intra- and perioral complaints suspected of having a contact allergy were patch-tested with the dental allergen series, European Baseline Series, and extended Amsterdam Baseline Series at Amsterdam University Medical Centers between January 2015 and November 2021. RESULTS: A total of 285 patients (79.2%) had a positive patch test reaction for either one (18.6%) or multiple allergens (60.6%). Sodium tetrachloropalladate was the most sensitising allergen with 98 patients (27.2%) testing positive, followed by nickel sulphate (23.3%), methylisothiazolinone (15.6%), and fragrance mix I (14.2%). Clinical relevance was found in 68 of 208 patients (32.7%), with patients having one (15.4%) or multiple (17.3%) patch test reactions clinically relevant to their (peri)oral complaints. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant patch test reactions were frequently seen in dental patients. Although this study provides us with a better understanding on the frequency and clinical relevance of contact allergy in dental patients, further studies are needed to confirm our results.

Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP)-A systematic review of the methodological quality of contact dermatitis clinical practice guidelines.

The Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP) assesses the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for high-burden skin diseases. This review focuses on contact dermatitis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier for CPGs published between 1 November 2018 and 1 November 2023. Prespecified guideline resources were hand searched. Two authors independently undertook screening, data extraction and quality assessments. Instruments used were the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Reporting Checklist, the U.S. Institute of Medicine's (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) Instrument and Lenzer's Red Flags. Twenty five CPGs were included, exhibiting heterogeneity in both the topics they addressed and their methodological quality. Whereas the CPGs on management of hand eczema from Denmark, Europe and the Netherlands scored best, most CPGs fell short of being clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence-based. Disclosure of conflicts of interest scored well, and areas needing improvement include 'strength and wording of recommendations', 'applicability', 'updating' and 'external review'. Adhering to AGREE II and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) enhances methodological quality.

Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP), a systematic review of atopic dermatitis clinical practice guidelines: are they clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence based (CUTE)?

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential in delivering optimum healthcare, such as for atopic dermatitis (AD), a highly prevalent skin disease. Although many CPGs are available for AD, their quality has not been critically appraised. OBJECTIVES: To identify CPGs on AD worldwide and to assess with validated instruments whether those CPGs are clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence based (CUTE). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier for CPGs on AD published between 1 April 2016 and 1 April 2021. Additionally we hand searched prespecified guideline resources. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment of eligible guidelines were independently carried out by two authors. Instruments used for quality assessment were the AGREE II Reporting Checklist, the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness and Lenzer's Red Flags. RESULTS: Forty CPGs were included, mostly from countries with a high sociodemographic index. The reporting quality varied enormously. Three CPGs scored 'excellent' on all AGREE II domains and three scored 'poor' on all domains. We found no association between AGREE II scores and a country's gross domestic product. One CPG fully met all nine IOM criteria and two fully met eight. Three CPGs had no red flags. 'Applicability' and 'rigour of development' were the lowest scoring AGREE II domains; 'external review', 'updating procedures' and 'rating strength of recommendations' were the IOM criteria least met; and most red flags were for 'limited or no involvement of methodological expertise' and 'no external review'. Management of conflicts of interest (COIs) appeared challenging. When constructs of the instruments overlapped, they showed high concordance, strengthening our conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, many CPGs are not sufficiently clear, unbiased, trustworthy or evidence based (CUTE) and lack applicability. Therefore improvement is warranted, for which using the AGREE II instrument is recommended. Some improvements can be easily accomplished through robust reporting. Others, such as transparency, applicability, evidence foundation and managing COIs, might require more effort.

Antibiotic use for irreversible pulpitis.

BACKGROUND: Irreversible pulpitis, which is characterised by acute and intense pain, is one of the most frequent reasons that patients attend for emergency dental care. Apart from removal of the tooth, the customary way of relieving the pain of irreversible pulpitis is by drilling into the tooth, removing the inflamed pulp (nerve) and cleaning the root canal. However, a significant number of dentists continue to prescribe antibiotics to stop the pain of irreversible pulpitis.This review updates the previous version published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic antibiotics for irreversible pulpitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 18 February 2019); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 18 February 2019); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 18 February 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 18 February 2019); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 18 February 2019); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (searched 18 February 2019). There were no language restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials which compared pain relief with systemic antibiotics and analgesics, against placebo and analgesics in the acute preoperative phase of irreversible pulpitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors screened studies and extracted data independently. We assessed the certainty of the evidence of included studies using GRADE. Pooling of data was not possible and a descriptive summary is presented. MAIN RESULTS: No additional trials could be included in this update. One trial at low risk of bias evaluating oral penicillin in combination with analgesics versus placebo with analgesics, involving 40 participants was included in a former update of the review. The certainty of the evidence was rated low for the different outcomes. Our primary outcome was patient-reported pain (intensity/duration) and pain relief. There was a close parallel distribution of the pain ratings in both the intervention (median 6.0, interquartile range (IQR) 10.5), and for placebo (median 6.0, IQR 9.5) over the seven-day study period. There was insufficient evidence to claim or refute a benefit for penicillin for pain intensity. There was no significant difference in the mean total number of ibuprofen tablets over the study period: 9.20 (standard deviation (SD) 6.02) in the penicillin group versus 9.60 (SD 6.34) in the placebo group; mean difference -0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.23 to 3.43; P = 0.84). This applied equally for the mean total number of Tylenol tablets: 6.90 (SD 6.87) used in the penicillin group versus 4.45 (SD 4.82) in the placebo group; mean difference 2.45 (95% CI -1.23 to 6.13; P = 0.19). Our secondary outcome on reporting of adverse events was not addressed in this study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review which was based on one low-powered small sample trial assessed as at low risk of bias, illustrates that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether antibiotics reduce pain or not compared to not having antibiotics. The results of this review confirm the necessity for further larger sample and methodologically sound trials that can provide additional evidence as to whether antibiotics, prescribed in the preoperative phase, can affect treatment outcomes for irreversible pulpitis.

Emollients and moisturisers for eczema.

BACKGROUND: Eczema is a chronic skin disease characterised by dry skin, intense itching, inflammatory skin lesions, and a considerable impact on quality of life. Moisturisation is an integral part of treatment, but it is unclear if moisturisers are effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of moisturisers for eczema. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to December 2015: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the GREAT database. We searched five trials registers and checked references of included and excluded studies for further relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in people with eczema. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included 77 studies (6603 participants, mean age: 18.6 years, mean duration: 6.7 weeks). We assessed 36 studies as at a high risk of bias, 34 at unclear risk, and seven at low risk. Twenty-four studies assessed our primary outcome 'participant-assessed disease severity', 13 assessed 'satisfaction', and 41 assessed 'adverse events'. Secondary outcomes included investigator-assessed disease severity (addressed in 65 studies), skin barrier function (29), flare prevention (16), quality of life (10), and corticosteroid use (eight). Adverse events reporting was limited (smarting, stinging, pruritus, erythema, folliculitis).Six studies evaluated moisturiser versus no moisturiser. 'Participant-assessed disease severity' and 'satisfaction' were not assessed. Moisturiser use yielded lower SCORAD than no moisturiser (three studies, 276 participants, mean difference (MD) -2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.55 to -0.28), but the minimal important difference (MID) (8.7) was unmet. There were fewer flares with moisturisers (two studies, 87 participants, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.70), time to flare was prolonged (median: 180 versus 30 days), and less topical corticosteroids were needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30 g, 95% CI -15.3 to -3.27). There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events (one study, 173 participants, risk ratio (RR) 15.34, 95% CI 0.90 to 261.64). Evidence for these outcomes was low quality.With Atopiclair (three studies), 174/232 participants experienced improvement in participant-assessed disease severity versus 27/158 allocated to vehicle (RR 4.51, 95% CI 2.19 to 9.29). Atopiclair decreased itching (four studies, 396 participants, MD -2.65, 95% CI -4.21 to -1.09) and achieved more frequent satisfaction (two studies, 248 participants, RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.58 to 2.89), fewer flares (three studies, 397 participants, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31), and lower EASI (four studies, 426 participants, MD -4.0, 95% CI -5.42 to -2.57), but MID (6.6) was unmet. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically different (four studies, 430 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.33). Evidence for these outcomes was moderate quality.Participants reported skin improvement more frequently with urea-containing cream than placebo (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.53; low-quality evidence), with equal satisfaction between the two groups (one study, 38 participants, low-quality evidence). Urea-containing cream improved dryness (investigator-assessed) more frequently (one study, 128 participants, RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.71; moderate-quality evidence) with fewer flares (one study, 44 participants, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.92; low-quality evidence), but more participants in this group reported adverse events (one study, 129 participants, RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.34; moderate-quality evidence).Three studies assessed glycerol-containing moisturiser versus vehicle or placebo. More participants in the glycerol group noticed skin improvement (one study, 134 participants, RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.48; moderate-quality evidence), and this group saw improved investigator-assessed SCORAD (one study, 249 participants, MD -2.20, 95% CI -3.44 to -0.96; high-quality evidence), but MID was unmet. Participant satisfaction was not addressed. The number of participants reporting adverse events was not statistically significant (two studies, 385 participants, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.19; moderate-quality evidence).Four studies investigated oat-containing moisturisers versus no treatment or vehicle. No significant differences between groups were reported for participant-assessed disease severity (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.46; low-quality evidence), satisfaction (one study, 50 participants, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.52; very low-quality evidence), and investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 272 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.21; low-quality evidence). In the oat group, there were fewer flares (one study, 43 participants, RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.7; low-quality evidence) and less topical corticosteroids needed (two studies, 222 participants, MD -9.30g, 95% CI 15.3 to -3.27; low-quality evidence), but more adverse events were reported (one study, 173 participants; Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.26, 95% CI 1.76 to 29.92; low-quality evidence).All moisturisers above were compared to placebo, vehicle, or no moisturiser. Participants considered moisturisers more effective in reducing eczema (five studies, 572 participants, RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.23; low-quality evidence) and itch (seven studies, 749 participants, SMD -1.10, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.38) than control. Participants in both treatment arms reported comparable satisfaction (three studies, 296 participants, RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.26; low-quality evidence). Moisturisers led to lower investigator-assessed disease severity (12 studies, 1281 participants, SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.51; high-quality evidence) and fewer flares (six studies, 607 participants, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.62; moderate-quality evidence), but there was no difference in adverse events (10 studies, 1275 participants, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; moderate-quality evidence).Topical active treatment combined with moisturiser was more effective than active treatment alone in reducing investigator-assessed disease severity (three studies, 192 participants, SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.57; moderate-quality evidence) and flares (one study, 105 participants, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.93), and was preferred by participants (both low-quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in number of adverse events (one study, 125 participants, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.19; very low-quality evidence). Participant-assessed disease severity was not addressed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most moisturisers showed some beneficial effects, producing better results when used with active treatment, prolonging time to flare, and reducing the number of flares and amount of topical corticosteroids needed to achieve similar reductions in eczema severity. We did not find reliable evidence that one moisturiser is better than another.

Interventions for female pattern hair loss.

BACKGROUND: Female pattern hair loss (FPHL), or androgenic alopecia, is the most common type of hair loss affecting women. It is characterised by progressive shortening of the duration of the growth phase of the hair with successive hair cycles, and progressive follicular miniaturisation with conversion of terminal to vellus hair follicles (terminal hairs are thicker and longer, while vellus hairs are soft, fine, and short). The frontal hair line may or may not be preserved. Hair loss can have a serious psychological impact on women. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of the available options for the treatment of female pattern hair loss in women. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), PsycINFO (from 1872), AMED (from 1985), LILACS (from 1982), PubMed (from 1947), and Web of Science (from 1945). We also searched five trial registries and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of interventions for FPHL in women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted data and carried out analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 47 trials, with 5290 participants, of which 25 trials were new to this update. Only five trials were at 'low risk of bias', 26 were at 'unclear risk', and 16 were at 'high risk of bias'.The included trials evaluated a wide range of interventions, and 17 studies evaluated minoxidil. Pooled data from six studies indicated that a greater proportion of participants (157/593) treated with minoxidil (2% and one study with 1%) reported a moderate to marked increase in their hair regrowth when compared with placebo (77/555) (risk ratio (RR) = 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 2.47; moderate quality evidence). These results were confirmed by the investigator-rated assessments in seven studies with 1181 participants (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.28; moderate quality evidence). Only one study reported on quality of life (QoL) (260 participants), albeit inadequately (low quality evidence). There was an important increase of 13.18 in total hair count per cm² in the minoxidil group compared to the placebo group (95% CI 10.92 to 15.44; low quality evidence) in eight studies (1242 participants). There were 40/407 adverse events in the twice daily minoxidil 2% group versus 28/320 in the placebo group (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.87; low quality evidence). There was also no statistically significant difference in adverse events between any of the individual concentrations against placebo.Four studies (1006 participants) evaluated minoxidil 2% versus 5%. In one study, 25/57 participants in the minoxidil 2% group experienced moderate to greatly increased hair regrowth versus 22/56 in the 5% group (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.73). In another study, 209 participants experienced no difference based on a visual analogue scale (P = 0.062; low quality evidence). The assessments of the investigators based on three studies (586 participants) were in agreement with these findings (moderate quality evidence). One study assessed QoL (209 participants) and reported limited data (low quality evidence). Four trials (1006 participants) did not show a difference in number of adverse events between the two concentrations (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20; low quality evidence). Both concentrations did not show a difference in increase in total hair count at end of study in three trials with 631 participants (mean difference (MD) -2.12, 95% CI -5.47 to 1.23; low quality evidence).Three studies investigated finasteride 1 mg compared to placebo. In the finasteride group 30/67 participants experienced improvement compared to 33/70 in the placebo group (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.37; low quality evidence). This was consistent with the investigators' assessments (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.90; low quality evidence). QoL was not assessed. Only one study addressed adverse events (137 participants) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.34; low quality evidence). In two studies (219 participants) there was no clinically meaningful difference in change of hair count, whilst one study (12 participants) favoured finasteride (low quality evidence).Two studies (141 participants) evaluated low-level laser comb therapy compared to a sham device. According to the participants, the low-level laser comb was not more effective than the sham device (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.49; and RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.89; moderate quality evidence). However, there was a difference in favour of low-level laser comb for change from baseline in hair count (MD 17.40, 95% CI 9.74 to 25.06; and MD 17.60, 95% CI 11.97 to 23.23; low quality evidence). These studies did not assess QoL and did not report adverse events per treatment arm and only in a generic way (low quality evidence). Low-level laser therapy against sham comparisons in two separate studies also showed an increase in total hair count but with limited further data.Single studies addressed the other comparisons and provided limited evidence of either the efficacy or safety of these interventions, or were unlikely to be examined in future trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although there was a predominance of included studies at unclear to high risk of bias, there was evidence to support the efficacy and safety of topical minoxidil in the treatment of FPHL (mainly moderate to low quality evidence). Furthermore, there was no difference in effect between the minoxidil 2% and 5% with the quality of evidence rated moderate to low for most outcomes. Finasteride was no more effective than placebo (low quality evidence). There were inconsistent results in the studies that evaluated laser devices (moderate to low quality evidence), but there was an improvement in total hair count measured from baseline.Further randomised controlled trials of other widely-used treatments, such as spironolactone, finasteride (different dosages), dutasteride, cyproterone acetate, and laser-based therapy are needed.

Antibiotic use for irreversible pulpitis.

BACKGROUND: Irreversible pulpitis, which is characterised by acute and intense pain, is one of the most frequent reasons that patients attend for emergency dental care. Apart from removal of the tooth, the customary way of relieving the pain of irreversible pulpitis is by drilling into the tooth, removing the inflamed pulp (nerve) and cleaning the root canal. However, a significant number of dentists continue to prescribe antibiotics to stop the pain of irreversible pulpitis.This review updates the previous version published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic antibiotics for irreversible pulpitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 27 January 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 12); MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 27 January 2016); EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 27 January 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (to 27 January 2016) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 27 January 2016). There were no language restrictions in the searches of the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials which compared pain relief with systemic antibiotics and analgesics, against placebo and analgesics in the acute preoperative phase of irreversible pulpitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened studies and extracted data independently. We assessed the quality of the evidence of included studies using GRADEpro software. Pooling of data was not possible and a descriptive summary is presented. MAIN RESULTS: One trial assessed at low risk of bias, involving 40 participants was included in this update of the review. The quality of the body of evidence was rated low for the different outcomes. There was a close parallel distribution of the pain ratings in both the intervention and placebo groups over the seven-day study period. There was insufficient evidence to claim or refute a benefit for penicillin for pain intensity. There was no significant difference in the mean total number of ibuprofen tablets over the study period: 9.2 (standard deviation (SD) 6.02) in the penicillin group versus 9.6 (SD 6.34) in the placebo group; mean difference -0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.23 to 3.43; P value = 0.84). This applied equally for the mean total number of Tylenol tablets: 6.9 (SD 6.87) used in the penicillin group versus 4.45 (SD 4.82) in the placebo group; mean difference 2.45 (95% CI -1.23 to 6.13; P value = 0.19). Our secondary outcome on reporting of adverse events was not addressed in this study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review which was based on one low powered small sample trial assessed as at low risk of bias, illustrates that there is insufficient evidence to determine whether antibiotics reduce pain or not compared to not having antibiotics. The results of this review confirm the necessity for further larger sample and methodologically sound trials that can provide additional evidence as to whether antibiotics, prescribed in the preoperative phase, can affect treatment outcomes for irreversible pulpitis.

RAPADAPTE for rapid guideline development: high-quality clinical guidelines can be rapidly developed with limited resources.

Guideline development is challenging, expensive and labor-intensive. A high-quality guideline with 90 recommendations for breast cancer treatment was developed within 6 months with limited resources in Costa Rica. We describe the experience and propose a process others can use and adapt.The ADAPTE method (using existing guidelines to minimize repeating work that has been done) was used but existing guidelines were not current. The method was extended to use databases that systematically identify, appraise and synthesize evidence for clinical application (DynaMed, EBM Guidelines) to provide current evidence searches and critical appraisal of evidence. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Draft recommendations with supporting evidence were provided to panel members for facilitated voting to target panel discussion to areas necessary for reaching consensus.Training panelists in guideline development methodology facilitated rapid consensus development. Extending 'guideline adaptation' to 'evidence database adaptation' was highly effective and efficient. Methods were created to simplify mapping DynaMed evidence ratings to GRADE ratings. Twelve steps are presented to facilitate rapid guideline development and enable further adaptation by others.This is a case report and the RAPADAPTE method was retrospectively derived. Prospective replication and validation will support advances for the guideline development community. If guideline development can be accelerated without compromising validity and relevance of the resulting recommendations this would greatly improve our ability to impact clinical care.

Low-molecular-weight heparins for managing vaso-occlusive crises in people with sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell disease is one of the most common and severe genetic disorders in the world. It can be broadly divided into two distinct clinical phenotypes characterized by either haemolysis or vaso-occlusion. Pain is the most prominent symptom of vaso-occlusion, and hypercoagulability is a well-established pathogenic phenomenon in people with sickle cell disease. Low-molecular-weight heparins might control this hypercoagulable state through their anticoagulant effect. This is an update of a previously published version of this review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of low-molecular-weight heparins for managing vaso-occlusive crises in people with sickle cell disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches. We also searched abstract books of conference proceedings and several online trials registries for ongoing trials.Date of the last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 28 September 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials and controlled clinical trials that assessed the effects of low-molecular-weight heparins in the management of vaso-occlusive crises in people with sickle cell disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and analyses were carried out independently by the two review authors. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies comprising 287 participants were included. One study (with an overall unclear to high risk of bias) involved 253 participants and the quality of the evidence for most outcomes was very low. This study, reported that pain severity at day two and day three was lower in the tinzaparin group than in the placebo group (P < 0.01, analysis of variance (ANOVA)) and additionally at day 4 (P < 0.05 (ANOVA)). Thus tinzaparin resulted in more rapid resolution of pain, as measured with a numerical pain scale. The mean difference in duration of painful crises was statistically significant at -1.78 days in favour of the tinzaparin group (95% confidence interval -1.94 to -1.62). Participants treated with tinzaparin had statistically significantly fewer hospitalisation days than participants in the group treated with placebo, with a mean difference of -4.98 days (95% confidence interval -5.48 to -4.48). Two minor bleeding events were reported as adverse events in the tinzaparin group, and none were reported in the placebo group. The second study (unclear risk of bias) including 34 participants and was a conference abstract with limited data and only addressed one of the predefined outcomes of the review; i.e. pain intensity. After one day pain intensity reduced more, as reported on a visual analogue scale, in the dalteparin group than in the placebo group, mean difference -1.30 (95% confidence interval -1.60 to -1.00), with the quality of evidence rated very low. The most important reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were serious risk of bias and imprecision (due to low sample size or low occurrence of events). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of two studies, evidence is incomplete to support or refute the effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparins in people with sickle cell disease. Vaso-occlusive crises are extremely debilitating for sufferers of sickle cell disease; therefore well-designed placebo-controlled studies with other types of low-molecular-weight heparins, and in participants with different genotypes of sickle cell disease, still need to be carried out to confirm or dismiss the results of this single study.

Day care versus in-patient surgery for age-related cataract.

BACKGROUND: Age-related cataract accounts for more than 40% of cases of blindness in the world with the majority of people who are blind from cataract living in lower income countries. With the increased number of people with cataract, it is important to review the evidence on the effectiveness of day care cataract surgery. OBJECTIVES: To provide authoritative, reliable evidence regarding the safety, feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of day case cataract extraction by comparing clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, patient satisfaction or a combination of these in cataract operations performed in day care versus in-patient units. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2015, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to August 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to August 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 17 August 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing day care and in-patient surgery for age-related cataract. The primary outcome was the achievement of a satisfactory visual acuity six weeks after the operation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects information from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials. One study was conducted in the USA in 1981 (250 people randomised and completed trial) and one study conducted in Spain in 2001 (1034 randomised, 935 completed trial). Both trials used extracapsular cataract extraction techniques that are not commonly used in higher income countries now. Most of the data in this review came from the larger trial, which we judged to be at low risk of bias.The mean change in visual acuity (in Snellen lines) of the operated eye four months postoperatively was similar in people given day care surgery (mean 4.1 lines standard deviation (SD) 2.3, 464 participants) compared to people treated as in-patients (mean 4.1 lines, SD 2.2, 471 participants) (P value = 0.74). No data were available from either study on intra-operative complications.Wound leakage, intraocular pressure (IOP) and corneal oedema were reported in the first day postoperatively and at four months after surgery. There was an increased risk of high IOP in the day care group in the first day after surgery (risk ratio (RR) 3.33, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.21 to 9.16, 935 participants) but not at four months (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.55, 935 participants). The findings for the other outcomes were inconclusive with wide CIs. There were two cases of endophthalmitis observed at four months in the day care group and none in the in-patient group. The smaller study stated that there were no infections or severe hyphaemas.In a subset of participants evaluated for quality of life (VF14 questionnaire) similar change in quality of life before and four months after surgery was observed (mean change in VF14 score: day care group 25.2, SD 21.2, 150 participants; in-patient group: 23.5, SD 25.7, 155 participants; P value = 0.30). Subjective assessment of patient satisfaction in the smaller study suggested that participants preferred to recuperate at home, were more comfortable in their familiar surroundings and enjoyed the family support that they received at home. Costs were 20% more for the in-patient group and this was attributed to higher costs for overnight stay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that there is cost saving with day care cataract surgery compared to in-patient cataract surgery. Although effects on visual acuity and quality of life appeared similar, the evidence with respect to postoperative complications was inconclusive because the effect estimates were imprecise. Given the wide-spread adoption of day care cataract surgery, future research in cataract clinical pathways should focus on evidence provided by high quality clinical databases (registers), which would enable clinicians and healthcare planners to agree clinical and social indications for in-patient care and so make better use of resources.

Interventions for hirsutism (excluding laser and photoepilation therapy alone).

BACKGROUND: Hirsutism occurs in 5% to 10% of women of reproductive age when there is excessive terminal hair growth in androgen-sensitive areas (male pattern). It is a distressing disorder with a major impact on quality of life. The most common cause is polycystic ovary syndrome. There are many treatment options, but it is not clear which are most effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions (except laser and light-based therapies alone) for hirsutism. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), and five trials registers, and checked reference lists of included studies for additional trials. The last search was in June 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in hirsute women with polycystic ovary syndrome, idiopathic hirsutism, or idiopathic hyperandrogenism. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors carried out study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 157 studies (sample size 30 to 80) comprising 10,550 women (mean age 25 years). The majority of studies (123/157) were 'high', 30 'unclear', and four 'low' risk of bias. Lack of blinding was the most frequent source of bias. Treatment duration was six to 12 months. Forty-eight studies provided no usable or retrievable data, i.e. lack of separate data for hirsute women, conference proceedings, and losses to follow-up above 40%.Primary outcomes, 'participant-reported improvement of hirsutism' and 'change in health-related quality of life', were addressed in few studies, and adverse events in only half. In most comparisons there was insufficient evidence to determine if the number of reported adverse events differed. These included known adverse events: gastrointestinal discomfort, breast tenderness, reduced libido, dry skin (flutamide and finasteride); irregular bleeding (spironolactone); nausea, diarrhoea, bloating (metformin); hot flushes, decreased libido, vaginal dryness, headaches (gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues)).Clinician's evaluation of hirsutism and change in androgen levels were addressed in most comparisons, change in body mass index (BMI) and improvement of other clinical signs of hyperandrogenism in one-third of studies.The quality of evidence was moderate to very low for most outcomes.There was low quality evidence for the effect of two oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) (ethinyl estradiol + cyproterone acetate versus ethinyl estradiol + desogestrel) on change from baseline of Ferriman-Gallwey scores. The mean difference (MD) was -1.84 (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.86 to 0.18).There was very low quality evidence that flutamide 250 mg, twice daily, reduced Ferriman-Gallwey scores more effectively than placebo (MD -7.60, 95% CI -10.53 to -4.67 and MD -7.20, 95% CI -10.15 to -4.25). Participants' evaluations in one study with 20 participants confirmed these results (risk ratio (RR) 17.00, 95% CI 1.11 to 259.87).Spironolactone 100 mg daily was more effective than placebo in reducing Ferriman-Gallwey scores (MD -7.69, 95% CI -10.12 to -5.26) (low quality evidence). It showed similar effectiveness to flutamide in two studies (MD -1.90, 95% CI -5.01 to 1.21 and MD 0.49, 95% CI -1.99 to 2.97) (very low quality evidence), as well as to finasteride in two studies (MD 1.49, 95% CI -0.58 to 3.56 and MD 0.40, 95% CI -1.18 to 1.98) (low quality evidence).Although there was very low quality evidence of a difference in reduction of Ferriman-Gallwey scores for finasteride 5 mg to 7.5 mg daily versus placebo (MD -5.73, 95% CI -6.87 to -4.58), it was unlikely it was clinically meaningful. These results were reinforced by participants' assessments (RR 2.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 4.29 and RR 11.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 175.86). However, finasteride showed inconsistent results in comparisons with other treatments, and no firm conclusions could be reached.Metformin demonstrated no benefit over placebo in reduction of Ferriman-Gallwey scores (MD 0.05, 95% CI -1.02 to 1.12), but the quality of evidence was low. Results regarding the effectiveness of GnRH analogues were inconsistent, varying from minimal to important improvements.We were unable to pool data for OCPs with cyproterone acetate 20 mg to 100 mg due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity between studies. However, addition of cyproterone acetate to OCPs provided greater reductions in Ferriman-Gallwey scores.Two studies, comparing finasteride 5 mg and spironolactone 100 mg, did not show differences in participant assessments and reduction of Ferriman-Gallwey scores (low quality evidence). Ferriman-Gallwey scores from three studies comparing flutamide versus metformin could not be pooled (I² = 62%). One study comparing flutamide 250 mg twice daily with metformin 850 mg twice daily for 12 months, which reached a higher cumulative dosage than two other studies evaluating this comparison, showed flutamide to be more effective (MD -6.30, 95% CI -9.83 to -2.77) (very low quality evidence). Data showing reductions in Ferriman-Gallwey scores could not be pooled for four studies comparing finasteride with flutamide as the results were inconsistent (I² = 67%).Studies examining effects of hypocaloric diets reported reductions in BMI, but which did not result in reductions in Ferriman-Gallwey scores. Although certain cosmetic measures are commonly used, we did not identify any relevant RCTs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Treatments may need to incorporate pharmacological therapies, cosmetic procedures, and psychological support. For mild hirsutism there is evidence of limited quality that OCPs are effective. Flutamide 250 mg twice daily and spironolactone 100 mg daily appeared to be effective and safe, albeit the evidence was low to very low quality. Finasteride 5 mg daily showed inconsistent results in different comparisons, therefore no firm conclusions can be made. As the side effects of antiandrogens and finasteride are well known, these should be accounted for in any clinical decision-making. There was low quality evidence that metformin was ineffective for hirsutism and although GnRH analogues showed inconsistent results in reducing hirsutism they do have significant side effects.Further research should consist of well-designed, rigorously reported, head-to-head trials examining OCPs combined with antiandrogens or 5α-reductase inhibitor against OCP monotherapy, as well as the different antiandrogens and 5α-reductase inhibitors against each other. Outcomes should be based on standardised scales of participants' assessment of treatment efficacy, with a greater emphasis on change in quality of life as a result of treatment.