Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for analgesia in traumatic corneal abrasions.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic corneal abrasions are relatively common and there is a lack of consensus about analgesia in their management. It is therefore important to document the clinical efficacy and safety profile of topical ophthalmic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the management of traumatic corneal abrasions. OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of topical NSAIDs with placebo or any alternative analgesic interventions in adults with traumatic corneal abrasions (including corneal abrasions arising from foreign body removal), to reduce pain, and its effects on healing time. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 30 March 2017), Embase Ovid (1947 to 30 March 2017), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database) (1982 to 30 March 2017), OpenGrey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) (www.opengrey.eu/); searched 30 March 2017, ZETOC (1993 to 30 March 2017), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch); searched 30 March 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 30 March 2017 and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 30 March 2017. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.We checked the reference lists of identified trials to search for further potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing topical NSAIDs to placebo or any alternative analgesic interventions in adults with traumatic corneal abrasions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed data extraction and assessed risks of bias in the included studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies that met the inclusion criteria, reporting data on 637 participants.The studies took place in the UK, USA, Israel, Italy, France and Portugal. These studies compared five types of topical NSAIDs (0.1% indomethacin, 0.03% flurbiprofen, 0.5% ketorolac, 1% indomethacin, 0.1% diclofenac) to control (consisting of standard care and in four studies used placebo eye drops). Overall, the studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias (particularly selection and reporting bias). None of the included studies reported the primary outcome measures of this review, namely participant-reported pain intensity reduction of 30% or more or 50% or more at 24 hours. Four trials, that included data on 481 participants receiving NSAIDs or control (placebo/standard care), reported on the use of 'rescue' analgesia at 24 hours as a proxy measure of pain control. Topical NSAIDs were associated with a reduction in the need for oral analgesia compared with control (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.61; low-certainty evidence). Approximately 4 out of 10 people in the control group used rescue analgesia at 24 hours. No data were available on the use of analgesia at 48 or 72 hours.One trial (28 participants) reported on the proportion of abrasions healed after 24 and 48 hours. These outcomes were similar in both arms of the trial. (at 24 hours RR 1.00 (0.81 to 1.23); at 48 hours RR 1.00 (0.88 to 1.14); low-certainty evidence). In the control group nine out of 10 abrasions were healed within 24 hours and all were healed by 48 hours. Complications of corneal abrasions were reported in 6 studies (609 participants) and were infrequently reported (4 complications, 1 in NSAID groups (recurrent corneal erosion) and 3 in control groups (2 recurrent corneal erosions and 1 corneal abscess), very low-certainty evidence). Possible drug-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in two trials (163 participants), with the number of adverse events low (4 AEs, 3 in NSAID group, including discomfort/photophobia on instillation, conjunctival hyperaemia and urticaria, and 1 in the control group, corneal abscess) very low-certainty evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the included studies do not provide strong evidence to support the use of topical NSAIDs in traumatic corneal abrasions. This is important, since NSAIDs are associated with a higher cost compared to oral analgesics. None of the trials addressed our primary outcome measure of participant-reported pain intensity reduction of 30% or more or 50% or more at 24 hours.

Is Stent on a String the New Gold Standard for Postureteroscopy Ureteral Drainage? Evidence from a Systematic Review.

Introduction: Ureteral stents are widely used throughout urologic surgery, most commonly following ureteroscope (URS) procedures. This systematic review aims to assess the current evidence concerning stent on string (SOS) placed after URS and compare it with stents without strings (SWOSs). Methods: A systematic review was conducted on several databases using the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) methodology for studies in English language, for patients of all age groups, who had an SOS after URS for stone disease. Results: Of 1210 records identified, a total of 22 studies (20 adult and 2 pediatric studies) were included, with a total of 8382 patients. Of these, 3427 (40.9%) had SOSs inserted and 434 (11%) were in the pediatric age group. Our results show that SOS provides several advantages, and compared with SWOS, they were in situ for less time, with no difference in complications such as urinary tract infection or urinary symptoms. Furthermore, significant cost savings, less pain on removal, and high rates of safe home removal were reported in SOS, with >90% patients reporting that they would be happy to remove their SOSs at home. However, a small risk of stent dislodgment must be considered when making decisions regarding SOS placement after URS. Conclusion: SOS provides an excellent option after URS, especially in those patients with no intraoperative complication, and their placement is done as a routine insertion based on surgeon preference. These stents reduce dwell time, pain, cost, risks, and suffering involved from prolonged stenting, and majority of patients are happy to remove it themselves at home. Although their use seems to be still restricted in the current endourology practices, they are likely to become the new gold standard for routine URS in future, with more shared decision making and patient-reported outcome measures coming into the mainstream.

Families' expectations of an eHealth family-based cardiovascular disease-risk reduction programme.

AIM: Research has shown that families' participation in a cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention programme could boost early adoption of healthy lifestyle behaviours in families. Behaviour-based, eHealth interventions are a potential means of achieving this. This study aimed to explore expectations of families-parents and children-at risk of CVD towards the design and functionality of an eHealth family-based CVD-risk reduction programme 'Health-e-Hearts'. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three online focus groups were conducted with six families comprising at least one parent at risk of CVD and at least one child aged 5-17 years. The focus groups were video and audio recorded and transcribed. Content analysis was used to synthesize and identify key categories and subcategories regarding development of and engagement with an eHealth programme. Three categories emerged: experiences of health apps and devices; eHealth application needs of family members; and motivators for using an eHealth programme. Experiences included using health apps individually and inconsistently. Needs included personalization, free and easy-to-use, time efficient, and multiple content formats. Motivators for engaging with the programme included goal setting, rewards, and competition. CONCLUSION: Families' expectations of an eHealth family-based CVD-risk reduction programme include the incorporation of personalized, easy-to-use design features and motivators for engaging with the programme. Family involvement in the development of an eHealth programme such as 'Health-e-Hearts' has the potential to boost early adoption of healthy lifestyle behaviours among all family members.