Real-world experience of nintedanib for progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease in the UK.

Background: Nintedanib slows progression of lung function decline in patients with progressive fibrosing (PF) interstitial lung disease (ILD) and was recommended for this indication within the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service in Scotland in June 2021 and in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in November 2021. To date, there has been no national evaluation of the use of nintedanib for PF-ILD in a real-world setting. Methods: 26 UK centres were invited to take part in a national service evaluation between 17 November 2021 and 30 September 2022. Summary data regarding underlying diagnosis, pulmonary function tests, diagnostic criteria, radiological appearance, concurrent immunosuppressive therapy and drug tolerability were collected via electronic survey. Results: 24 UK prescribing centres responded to the service evaluation invitation. Between 17 November 2021 and 30 September 2022, 1120 patients received a multidisciplinary team recommendation to commence nintedanib for PF-ILD. The most common underlying diagnoses were hypersensitivity pneumonitis (298 out of 1120, 26.6%), connective tissue disease associated ILD (197 out of 1120, 17.6%), rheumatoid arthritis associated ILD (180 out of 1120, 16.0%), idiopathic nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (125 out of 1120, 11.1%) and unclassifiable ILD (100 out of 1120, 8.9%). Of these, 54.4% (609 out of 1120) were receiving concomitant corticosteroids, 355 (31.7%) out of 1120 were receiving concomitant mycophenolate mofetil and 340 (30.3%) out of 1120 were receiving another immunosuppressive/modulatory therapy. Radiological progression of ILD combined with worsening respiratory symptoms was the most common reason for the diagnosis of PF-ILD. Conclusion: We have demonstrated the use of nintedanib for the treatment of PF-ILD across a broad range of underlying conditions. Nintedanib is frequently co-prescribed alongside immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory therapy. The use of nintedanib for the treatment of PF-ILD has demonstrated acceptable tolerability in a real-world setting.

Diagnoses and treatments for participants with interstitial lung abnormalities detected in the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) are relatively common incidental findings in participants undergoing low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. Some ILA are transient and inconsequential, but others represent interstitial lung disease (ILD). Lung cancer screening therefore offers the opportunity of earlier diagnosis and treatment of ILD for some screening participants. METHODS: The prevalence of ILA in participants in the baseline screening round of the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial is reported, along with the proportion referred to a regional ILD service, eventual diagnoses, outcomes and treatments. RESULTS: Of 6650 participants undergoing screening, ILA were reported in 169 (2.5%) participants. Following review in a screening review meeting, 56 participants were referred to the ILD service for further evaluation (0.8% of all screening participants). 2 participants declined referral, 1 is currently awaiting review and the remaining 53 were confirmed as having ILD. Eventual diagnoses were idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (n=14), respiratory bronchiolitis ILD (n=4), chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (n=2), connective tissue disease/rheumatoid arthritis-related ILD (n=4), asbestosis (n=1), idiopathic non-specific interstitial pneumonia (n=1), sarcoidosis (n=1) and pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis (n=1). Twenty five patients had unclassifiable idiopathic interstitial pneumonia. Overall, 10 people received pharmacotherapy (7 antifibrotics and 3 prednisolone) representing 18% of those referred to the ILD service and 0.15% of those undergoing screening. 32 people remain under surveillance in the ILD service, some of whom may require treatment in future. DISCUSSION: Lung cancer screening detects clinically significant cases of ILD allowing early commencement of disease-modifying treatment in a proportion of participants. This is the largest screening cohort to report eventual diagnoses and treatments and provides an estimate of the level of clinical activity to be expected by ILD services as lung cancer screening is implemented. Further research is needed to clarify the optimal management of screen-detected ILD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN42704678.

Residual Lung Abnormalities after COVID-19 Hospitalization: Interim Analysis of the UKILD Post-COVID-19 Study.

Rationale: Shared symptoms and genetic architecture between coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and lung fibrosis suggest severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may lead to progressive lung damage. Objectives: The UK Interstitial Lung Disease Consortium (UKILD) post-COVID-19 study interim analysis was planned to estimate the prevalence of residual lung abnormalities in people hospitalized with COVID-19 on the basis of risk strata. Methods: The PHOSP-COVID-19 (Post-Hospitalization COVID-19) study was used to capture routine and research follow-up within 240 days from discharge. Thoracic computed tomography linked by PHOSP-COVID-19 identifiers was scored for the percentage of residual lung abnormalities (ground-glass opacities and reticulations). Risk factors in linked computed tomography were estimated with Bayesian binomial regression, and risk strata were generated. Numbers within strata were used to estimate posthospitalization prevalence using Bayesian binomial distributions. Sensitivity analysis was restricted to participants with protocol-driven research follow-up. Measurements and Main Results: The interim cohort comprised 3,700 people. Of 209 subjects with linked computed tomography (median, 119 d; interquartile range, 83-155), 166 people (79.4%) had more than 10% involvement of residual lung abnormalities. Risk factors included abnormal chest X-ray (risk ratio [RR], 1.21; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.05-1.40), percent predicted DlCO less than 80% (RR, 1.25; 95% CrI, 1.00-1.56), and severe admission requiring ventilation support (RR, 1.27; 95% CrI, 1.07-1.55). In the remaining 3,491 people, moderate to very high risk of residual lung abnormalities was classified at 7.8%, and posthospitalization prevalence was estimated at 8.5% (95% CrI, 7.6-9.5), rising to 11.7% (95% CrI, 10.3-13.1) in the sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: Residual lung abnormalities were estimated in up to 11% of people discharged after COVID-19-related hospitalization. Health services should monitor at-risk individuals to elucidate long-term functional implications.

Understanding the burden of interstitial lung disease post-COVID-19: the UK Interstitial Lung Disease-Long COVID Study (UKILD-Long COVID).

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to over 100 million cases worldwide. The UK has had over 4 million cases, 400 000 hospital admissions and 100 000 deaths. Many patients with COVID-19 suffer long-term symptoms, predominantly breathlessness and fatigue whether hospitalised or not. Early data suggest potentially severe long-term consequence of COVID-19 is development of long COVID-19-related interstitial lung disease (LC-ILD). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The UK Interstitial Lung Disease Consortium (UKILD) will undertake longitudinal observational studies of patients with suspected ILD following COVID-19. The primary objective is to determine ILD prevalence at 12 months following infection and whether clinically severe infection correlates with severity of ILD. Secondary objectives will determine the clinical, genetic, epigenetic and biochemical factors that determine the trajectory of recovery or progression of ILD. Data will be obtained through linkage to the Post-Hospitalisation COVID platform study and community studies. Additional substudies will conduct deep phenotyping. The Xenon MRI investigation of Alveolar dysfunction Substudy will conduct longitudinal xenon alveolar gas transfer and proton perfusion MRI. The POST COVID-19 interstitial lung DiseasE substudy will conduct clinically indicated bronchoalveolar lavage with matched whole blood sampling. Assessments include exploratory single cell RNA and lung microbiomics analysis, gene expression and epigenetic assessment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All contributing studies have been granted appropriate ethical approvals. Results from this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals. CONCLUSION: This study will ensure the extent and consequences of LC-ILD are established and enable strategies to mitigate progression of LC-ILD.

The Perils and Pitfalls of Esophageal Dysmotility in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.

INTRODUCTION: Gastroesophageal reflux plays a significant role in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Given the morbidity and mortality associated with IPF, understanding the mechanisms responsible for reflux is essential if patients are to receive optimal treatment and management, especially given the lack of clear benefit of antireflux therapies. Our aim was to understand the inter-relationships between esophageal motility, lung mechanics and reflux (particularly proximal reflux-a prerequisite of aspiration), and pulmonary function in patients with IPF. METHODS: We prospectively recruited 35 patients with IPF (aged 53-75 years; 27 men) who underwent high-resolution impedance manometry and 24-hour pH-impedance, together with pulmonary function assessment. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients (63%) exhibited dysmotility, 16 (73%) exhibited ineffective esophageal motility (IEM), and 6 (27%) exhibited esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction. Patients with IEM had more severe pulmonary disease (% forced vital capacity: P = 0.032) and more proximal reflux (P = 0.074) than patients with normal motility. In patients with IEM, intrathoracic pressure inversely correlated with the number of proximal events (r = -0.429; P = 0.098). Surprisingly, inspiratory lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP) positively correlated with the percentage of reflux events reaching the proximal esophagus (r = 0.583; P = 0.018), whereas in patients with normal motility, it inversely correlated with the bolus exposure time (r = -0.478; P = 0.098) and number of proximal events (r = -0.542; P = 0.056). % forced vital capacity in patients with IEM inversely correlated with the percentage of reflux events reaching the proximal esophagus (r = -0.520; P = 0.039) and inspiratory LESP (r = -0.477; P = 0.062) and positively correlated with intrathoracic pressure (r = 0.633; P = 0.008). DISCUSSION: We have shown that pulmonary function is worse in patients with IEM which is associated with more proximal reflux events, the latter correlating with lower intrathoracic pressures and higher LESPs.

Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate about the frequency with which patients should attend for a dental check-up and the effects on oral health of the interval between check-ups. Recommendations regarding optimal recall intervals vary between countries and dental healthcare systems, but 6-month dental check-ups have traditionally been advocated by general dental practitioners in many high-income countries. This review updates a version first published in 2005, and updated in 2007 and 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine the optimal recall interval of dental check-up for oral health in a primary care setting. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 17 January 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; in the Cochrane Library, 2019, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 January 2020), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 17 January 2020). We also searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different dental recall intervals in a primary care setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened search results against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias, independently and in duplicate. We contacted study authors for clarification or further information where necessary and feasible. We expressed the estimate of effect as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with data from 1736 participants. One study was conducted in a public dental service clinic in Norway and involved participants under 20 years of age who were regular attenders at dental appointments. It compared 12-month with 24-month recall intervals and measured outcomes at two years. The other study was conducted in UK general dental practices and involved adults who were regular attenders, which was defined as having attended the dentist at least once in the previous two years. It compared the effects of 6-month, 24-month and risk-based recall intervals, and measured outcomes at four years. The main outcomes we considered were dental caries, gingival bleeding and oral-health-related quality of life. Neither study measured other potential adverse effects. 24-month versus 12-month recall at 2 years' follow-up Due to the very low certainty of evidence from one trial, it is unclear if there is an important difference in caries experience between assignment to a 24-month or a 12-month recall. For 3- to 5-year-olds with primary teeth, the mean difference (MD) in dmfs (decayed, missing, and filled tooth surfaces) increment was 0.90 (95% CI -0.16 to 1.96; 58 participants). For 16- to 20-year-olds with permanent teeth, the MD in DMFS increment was 0.86 (95% CI -0.03 to 1.75; 127 participants). The trial did not assess other clinical outcomes of relevance to this review. Risk-based recall versus 6-month recall at 4 years' follow-up We found high-certainty evidence from one trial of adults that there is little to no difference between risk-based and 6-month recall intervals for the outcomes: number of tooth surfaces with any caries (ICDAS 1 to 6; MD 0.15, 95% CI -0.77 to 1.08; 1478 participants); proportion of sites with gingival bleeding (MD 0.78%, 95% CI -1.17% to 2.73%; 1472 participants); oral-health-related quality of life (MD in OHIP-14 scores -0.35, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.32; 1551 participants). There is probably little to no difference in the prevalence of moderate to extensive caries (ICDAS 3 to 6) between the groups (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.09; 1478 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). 24-month recall versus 6-month recall at 4 years' follow-up We found moderate-certainty evidence from one trial of adults that there is probably little to no difference between 24-month and 6-month recall intervals for the outcomes: number of tooth surfaces with any caries (MD -0.60, 95% CI -2.54 to 1.34; 271 participants); percentage of sites with gingival bleeding (MD -0.91%, 95% CI -5.02% to 3.20%; 271 participants). There may be little to no difference between the groups in the prevalence of moderate to extensive caries (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; 271 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found high-certainty evidence that there is little to no difference in oral-health-related quality of life between the groups (MD in OHIP-14 scores -0.24, 95% CI -1.55 to 1.07; 305 participants). Risk-based recall versus 24-month recall at 4 years' follow-up We found moderate-certainty evidence from one trial of adults that there is probably little to no difference between risk-based and 24-month recall intervals for the outcomes: prevalence of moderate to extensive caries (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.19; 279 participants); number of tooth surfaces with any caries (MD 1.40, 95% CI -0.69 to 3.49; 279 participants). We found high-certainty evidence that there is no important difference between the groups in the percentage of sites with gingival bleeding (MD -0.07%, 95% CI -4.10% to 3.96%; 279 participants); or in oral-health-related quality of life (MD in OHIP-14 scores -0.37, 95% CI -1.69 to 0.95; 298 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For adults attending dental check-ups in primary care settings, there is little to no difference between risk-based and 6-month recall intervals in the number of tooth surfaces with any caries, gingival bleeding and oral-health-related quality of life over a 4-year period (high-certainty evidence). There is probably little to no difference between the recall strategies in the prevalence of moderate to extensive caries (moderate-certainty evidence). When comparing 24-month with either 6-month or risk-based recall intervals for adults, there is moderate- to high-certainty evidence that there is little to no difference in the number of tooth surfaces with any caries, gingival bleeding and oral-health-related quality of life over a 4-year period. The available evidence on recall intervals between dental check-ups for children and adolescents is uncertain. The two trials we included in the review did not assess adverse effects of different recall strategies.

Effect of rituximab or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors on lung infection and survival in rheumatoid arthritis-associated bronchiectasis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate rituximab (RTX) in patients with RA-associated bronchiectasis (RA-BR) and compare 5-year respiratory survival between those treated with RTX and TNF inhibitors (TNFi). METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study of RA-BR in RTX or TNFi-treated RA patients from two UK centres over 10 years. BR was assessed using number of infective exacerbation/year. Respiratory survival was measured from therapy initiation to discontinuation either due to lung exacerbation or lung-related deaths. RESULTS: Of 800 RTX-treated RA patients, 68 had RA-BR (prevalence 8.5%). Post-RTX, new BR was diagnosed in 3/735 patients (incidence 0.4%). At 12 months post-Cycle 1 RTX, 21/68 (31%) patients had fewer exacerbations than the year pre-RTX, 36/68 (53%) remained stable and 11/68 (16%) had increased exacerbations. The rates of exacerbation improved after Cycle 2 and stabilized up to 5 cycles. Of patients who received ≥2 RTX cycles (n = 60), increased exacerbations occurred in 7/60 (12%) and were associated with low IgG, aspergillosis and concurrent alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency. Overall, 8/68 (11.8%) patients discontinued RTX while 15/46 (32.6%) discontinued TNFi due to respiratory causes. The adjusted 5-year respiratory survival was better in RTX-treated compared with TNFi-treated RA-BR patients; HR 0.40 (95% CI 0.17, 0.96); P =0.041. CONCLUSION: The majority of RTX-treated RA-BR patients had stable/improved pulmonary symptoms in this long-term follow-up. In isolated cases, worsening of exacerbation had definable causes. Rates of discontinuation due to adverse lung outcomes were better for RTX than a matched TNFi cohort. RTX is an acceptable therapeutic choice for RA-BR if a biologic is needed.

Level of accuracy of diagnoses recorded in discharge summaries: A cohort study in three respiratory wards.

RATIONALE: One of the key functions of the discharge summary is to convey accurate diagnostic description of patients. Inaccurate or missing diagnoses may result in a false clinical picture, inappropriate management, poor quality of care, and a higher risk of re-admission. While several studies have investigated the presence or absence of diagnoses within discharge summaries, there are very few published studies assessing the accuracy of these diagnoses. The aim of this study was to measure the accuracy of diagnoses recorded in sample summaries, and to determine if it was correlated with the type of diagnoses (eg, "respiratory" diagnoses), the number of diagnoses, or the length of patient stay. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in three respiratory wards in a large UK NHS Teaching Hospital. We determined the reference list of diagnoses (the closest to the true state of the patient based on consultant knowledge, patient records, and laboratory investigations) for comparison with the diagnoses recorded in a discharge summary. To enable objective comparison, all patient diagnoses were encoded using a standardized terminology (ICD-10). Inaccuracy of the primary diagnosis alone and all diagnoses in discharge summaries was measured and then correlated with type of diseases, number of diagnoses, and length of patient stay. RESULTS: A total of 107 of 110 consecutive discharge summaries were analysed. The mean inaccuracy rate per discharge summary was 55% [95% CI 52 to 58%]. Primary diagnoses were wrong, inaccurate, missing, or mis-recorded as a secondary diagnosis in half the summaries. The inaccuracy rate was correlated with the type of disease but not with number of diagnoses nor length of patient stay. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that diagnoses were not accurately recorded in discharge summaries, highlighting the need to measure and improve discharge summary quality.

Routine scale and polish for periodontal health in adults.

BACKGROUND: Many dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even for those at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is debate over the clinical and cost effectiveness of 'routine scaling and polishing' and the optimal frequency at which it should be provided for healthy adults.A 'routine scale and polish' treatment is defined as scaling or polishing, or both, of the crown and root surfaces of teeth to remove local irritational factors (plaque, calculus, debris and staining), which does not involve periodontal surgery or any form of adjunctive periodontal therapy such as the use of chemotherapeutic agents or root planing. Routine scale and polish treatments are typically provided in general dental practice settings. The technique may also be referred to as prophylaxis, professional mechanical plaque removal or periodontal instrumentation.This review updates a version published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: 1. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health.2. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervals for periodontal health.3. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health when the treatment is provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or dental hygienists). SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 January 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of routine scale and polish treatments, with or without oral hygiene instruction, in healthy dentate adults without severe periodontitis. We excluded split-mouth trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MDs) (or standardised mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs for dichotomous data. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses. We contacted study authors when necessary to obtain missing information. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with 1711 participants in the analyses. Both studies were conducted in UK general dental practices and involved adults without severe periodontitis who were regular attenders at dental appointments. One study measured outcomes at 24 months and the other at 36 months. Neither study measured adverse effects, changes in attachment level, tooth loss or halitosis.Comparison 1: routine scaling and polishing versus no scheduled scaling and polishingTwo studies compared planned, regular interval (six- and 12-monthly) scale and polish treatments versus no scheduled treatment. We found little or no difference between groups over a two- to three-year period for gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis when comparing six-monthly scale and polish treatment versus no scheduled treatment was -0.01 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.11; two trials, 1087 participants), and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08; two trials, 1091 participants).Regular planned scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over two to three years when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). The SMD for six-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.32 (95% CI -0.44 to -0.20; two trials, 1088 participants) and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.19 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.07; two trials, 1088 participants). The clinical importance of these small reductions is unclear.Participants' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were higher when receiving six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments compared to no scheduled treatment, but the certainty of the evidence is low.Comparison 2: routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervalsTwo studies compared routine six-monthly scale and polish treatments versus 12-monthly treatments. We found little or no difference between groups over two to three years for the outcomes of gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis was 0.03 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.15; two trials, 1090 participants; I2 = 0%). Six- monthly scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over a two- to three-year period when compared with 12-monthly treatments (SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.25 to -0.01; 2 trials, 1086 participants; high-certainty evidence). The clinical importance of this small reduction is unclear.The comparative effects of six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments on patients' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).Comparison 3: routine scaling and polishing provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or hygienists)No studies evaluated this comparison.The review findings in relation to costs were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For adults without severe periodontitis who regularly access routine dental care, routine scale and polish treatment makes little or no difference to gingivitis, probing depths and oral health-related quality of life over two to three years follow-up when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference in plaque levels over two years (low-certainty evidence). Routine scaling and polishing reduces calculus levels compared with no routine scaling and polishing, with six-monthly treatments reducing calculus more than 12-monthly treatments over two to three years follow-up (high-certainty evidence), although the clinical importance of these small reductions is uncertain. Available evidence on the costs of the treatments is uncertain. The studies did not assess adverse effects.

Needle size for vaccination procedures in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. The conclusions have not changed.Hypodermic needles of different sizes (gauges and lengths) can be used for vaccination procedures. The gauge (G) refers to the outside diameter of the needle tubing. The higher the gauge number, the smaller the diameter of the needle (e.g. a 23 G needle is 0.6 mm in diameter, whereas a 25 G needle is 0.5 mm in diameter). Many vaccines are recommended for injection into muscle (intramuscularly), although some are delivered subcutaneously (under the skin) and intradermally (into skin). Choosing an appropriate length and gauge of a needle may be important to ensure that a vaccine is delivered to the appropriate site and produces the maximum immune response while causing the least possible harm. Guidelines conflict regarding the sizes of needles that should be used for vaccinating children and adolescents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of using needles of different sizes for administering vaccines to children and adolescents on vaccine immunogenicity (the ability of the vaccine to elicit an immune response), procedural pain, and other reactogenicity events (adverse events following vaccine administration). SEARCH METHODS: We updated our searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL to October 2017. We also searched proceedings of vaccine conferences and two trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of using hypodermic needles of any gauge or length to administer any type of vaccine to people aged from birth to 24 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted trial data and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information. We rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE system. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials involving 1350 participants in the original review. The updated review identified no new trials. The evidence from two small trials (one trial including infants and one including adolescents) was insufficient to allow any definitive statements to be made about the effects of the needles evaluated in the trials on vaccine immunogenicity and reactogenicity.The remaining three trials (1135 participants) contributed data to comparisons between 25 G 25 mm, 23 G 25 mm, and 25 G 16 mm needles. These trials included infants predominantly aged from two to six months undergoing intramuscular vaccination in the anterolateral thigh using the World Health Organization (WHO) injection technique (skin stretched flat, needle inserted at a 90° angle and up to the needle hub in healthy infants). The vaccines administered were combination vaccines containing diphtheria, tetanus, and whole-cell pertussis antigens (DTwP). In some trials, the vaccines also contained Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTwP-Hib) and hepatitis B (DTwP-Hib-Hep B) antigen components.Primary outcomesIncidence of vaccine-preventable diseases: No trials reported this outcome.Procedural pain and crying: Using a wider gauge 23 G 25 mm needle may slightly reduce procedural pain (low-quality evidence) and probably leads to a slight reduction in the duration of crying time immediately after vaccination (moderate-quality evidence) compared with a narrower gauge 25 G 25 mm needle (one trial, 320 participants). The effects are probably not large enough to be clinically relevant.Secondary outcomesImmune response: There is probably little or no difference in immune response, defined in terms of the proportion of seroprotected infants, between use of 25 G 25 mm, 23 G 25 mm, or 25 G 16 mm needles to administer a series of three doses of a DTwP-Hib vaccine at ages two, three, and four months (moderate-quality evidence, one trial, numbers of participants in analyses range from 309 to 402. The immune response to the pertussis antigen was not measured).Severe and non-severe local reactions: 25 mm needles (either 25 G or 23 G) probably lead to fewer severe and non-severe local reactions after DTwP-Hib vaccination compared with 25 G 16 mm needles (moderate-quality evidence, one trial, 447 to 458 participants in analyses). We estimate that one fewer infant will experience a severe local reaction (extensive redness and swelling) after the first vaccine dose for every 25 infants vaccinated with the longer rather than the shorter needle (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with a 25 G 25 mm needle: 25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15 to 100); NNTB with a 23 G 25 mm needle: 25 (95% CI 17 to 100)). We estimate that one fewer infant will experience a non-severe local reaction (any redness, swelling, tenderness, or hardness (composite outcome)) at 24 hours after the first vaccine dose for every 5 or 6 infants vaccinated with a 25 mm rather than a 16 mm needle (NNTB with a 25 G 25 mm needle: 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); NNTB with a 23 G 25 mm needle: 6 (95% CI 4 to 13)). The results are similar after the second and third vaccine doses.Using a narrow gauge 25 G 25 mm needle may produce a small reduction in the incidence of local reactions after each dose of a DTwP vaccine compared with a wider gauge 23 G 25 mm needle, but the effect estimates are imprecise (low-quality evidence, two trials, 100 to 459 participants in analyses).Systemic reactions: The comparative effects of 23 G 25 mm, 25 G 25 mm, and 25 G 16 mm needles on the incidence of postvaccination fever and other systemic events such as drowsiness, loss of appetite, and vomiting are uncertain due to the very low quality of the evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Using 25 mm needles (either 23 G or 25 G) for intramuscular vaccination procedures in the anterolateral thigh of infants using the WHO injection technique probably reduces the occurrence of local reactions while achieving a comparable immune response to 25 G 16 mm needles. These findings are applicable to healthy infants aged two to six months receiving combination DTwP vaccines with a reactogenic whole-cell pertussis antigen component. These vaccines are predominantly used in low- and middle-income countries. The applicability of the findings to vaccines with acellular pertussis components and other vaccines with different reactogenicity profiles is uncertain.

The impact of three discharge coding methods on the accuracy of diagnostic coding and hospital reimbursement for inpatient medical care.

BACKGROUND: Coding of diagnoses is important for patient care, hospital management and research. However coding accuracy is often poor and may reflect methods of coding. This study investigates the impact of three alternative coding methods on the inaccuracy of diagnosis codes and hospital reimbursement. METHODS: Comparisons of coding inaccuracy were made between a list of coded diagnoses obtained by a coder using (i)the discharge summary alone, (ii)case notes and discharge summary, and (iii)discharge summary with the addition of medical input. For each method, inaccuracy was determined for the primary, secondary diagnoses, Healthcare Resource Group (HRG) and estimated hospital reimbursement. These data were then compared with a gold standard derived by a consultant and coder. RESULTS: 107 consecutive patient discharges were analysed. Inaccuracy of diagnosis codes was highest when a coder used the discharge summary alone, and decreased significantly when the coder used the case notes (70% vs 58% respectively, p < 0.0001) or coded from the discharge summary with medical support (70% vs 60% respectively, p < 0.0001). When compared with the gold standard, the percentage of incorrect HRGs was 42% for discharge summary alone, 31% for coding with case notes, and 35% for coding with medical support. The three coding methods resulted in an annual estimated loss of hospital remuneration of between £1.8 M and £16.5 M. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of diagnosis codes and percentage of correct HRGs improved when coders used either case notes or medical support in addition to the discharge summary. Further emphasis needs to be placed on improving the standard of information recorded in discharge summaries.

Effect of rituximab on the progression of rheumatoid arthritis-related interstitial lung disease: 10 years' experience at a single centre.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of rituximab (RTX) in patients with RA-related interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) and identify factors associated with outcome after treatment. Methods: An observational study of patients with RA-ILD was conducted from a cohort of RTX-treated RA patients in a single centre for >10 years. Progression was defined by any of the following: a decrease of pre-RTX forced vital capacity (FVC) >10% or diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide (DLCO) >15% predicted, worsening of the ILD score or death from progressive ILD. Results: Of 700 RA patients treated with RTX, 56 had RA-ILD (prevalence = 8%). After RTX, new ILD was diagnosed in 3/700 patients (incidence = 0.4%). Data for lung assessment were available for 44/56 patients. The median relative change pre- and post-RTX for FVC were -2.4% and +1.2% ( P = 0.025) and for DLCO were -4.4% and -1.3% ( P = 0.045). Post-RTX, 23/44 (52%) were stable and 7/44 (16%) had improved. Of the 14 (32%) with ILD that progressed, 9/56 (16%) were deaths due to progressive ILD. Factors associated with ILD progression were radiologic pattern of usual interstitial pneumonia, a previous history of lung progression and pre-RTX DLCO <46% predicted. Of those whose ILD progressed, 11/14 (79%) had severe ILD before RTX [median DLCO 42% predicted (interquartile range 41-49)]. Conclusion: In this cohort of patients where RTX was given for arthritis, most patients with ILD pre-RTX remained stable/improved after treatment over a prolonged follow-up period. Patients who deteriorated/died had the most severe ILD pre-RTX, suggesting the drug was not contributory. RTX appears to be an acceptable therapeutic choice for patients with RA-ILD and further studies are warranted.

Needle size for vaccination procedures in children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Hypodermic needles of different sizes (gauges and lengths) can be used for vaccination procedures. The gauge (G) refers to the outside diameter of the needle tubing. The higher the gauge number, the smaller diameter of the needle (eg a 25 G needle is 0.5 mm in diameter and is narrower than a 23 G needle (0.6 mm)). Many vaccines are recommended for injection into muscle (intramuscularly), although some are delivered subcutaneously (under the skin) and intradermally (into skin). Choosing an appropriate length and gauge of a needle may be important to ensure that a vaccine is delivered to the appropriate site and produces the maximum immune response while causing the least possible harm. There are some conflicting guidelines regarding the lengths and gauges of needles that should be used for vaccination procedures in children and adolescents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of using needles of different lengths and gauges for administering vaccines to children and adolescents on vaccine immunogenicity (the ability of the vaccine to elicit an immune response), procedural pain, and other reactogenicity events (adverse events following vaccine administration). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE and MEDLINE in Progress via Ovid (1947 to November 2014), EMBASE via Ovid (1974 to November 2014), and CINAHL via EBSCOhost (1982 to November 2014). We also searched reference lists of articles and textbooks, the proceedings of vaccine conferences, and three clinical trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of using hypodermic needles of any gauge or length to administer any type of vaccine to people aged from birth to 24 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted trial data and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for additional information. We rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE system. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials involving 1350 participants. Data for the primary review outcomes were either absent (for the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases) or limited (for procedural pain and crying). The available evidence was compromised by the use of surrogate immunogenicity outcomes, incomplete blinding of outcome assessors, and imprecision for some outcomes. The evidence from two small trials was insufficient to allow any confident statements to be made about the effects of the needles evaluated in the trials on vaccine immunogenicity and reactogenicity.The remaining three trials (1135 participants) contributed data to comparisons between 25 G 25 mm, 23 G 25 mm, and 25 G 16 mm needles. These trials involved infants predominantly aged two to six months undergoing intramuscular vaccination in the anterolateral thigh using the World Health Organization (WHO) injection technique (skin stretched flat, needle inserted at a 90° angle and up to the needle hub in healthy infants). The vaccines administered were combination vaccines containing diphtheria, tetanus, and whole-cell pertussis antigens (DTwP). In some trials, the vaccines also contained Haemophilus influenzae type b (DTwP-Hib) and hepatitis B (DTwP-Hib-HepB) antigen components.We found moderate quality evidence from one trial that there is probably little or no difference in immune response, defined in terms of the proportion of seroprotected infants, between using 25 G 25 mm, 23 G 25 mm, or 25 G 16 mm needles to administer a series of three doses of a DTwP-Hib vaccine at ages two, three, and four months (numbers of participants in analyses range from 309 to 402. Immune response to pertussis antigen not measured).25 mm needles (either 23 G or 25 G) probably lead to fewer severe local reactions (extensive redness and swelling) and fewer non-severe local reactions (any redness, swelling, tenderness or hardness (composite outcome)) after DTwP-Hib vaccination compared with 25 G 16 mm needles. We estimate that one fewer infant will experience a severe local reaction after the first vaccine dose for every 25 infants vaccinated with the longer rather than the shorter needle (number needed to treat (NNT) 25 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15 to 100)). We estimate that one fewer infant will experience a non-severe local reaction at 24 hours after the first, second, and third vaccine doses for every five to eight infants vaccinated with the longer rather than the shorter needle (NNTs range from 5 (95% CI 4 to 10) to 8 (95% CI 5 to 34)) (moderate quality evidence, one trial for first and second doses, two trials for third dose, numbers of participants in analyses range from 413 to 528).Using a wider gauge needle (23 G 25 mm) may slightly reduce procedural pain (low quality evidence) and probably leads to a slight reduction in the duration of crying time immediately after vaccination (moderate quality evidence) compared with a narrower gauge (25 G 25 mm) needle (one trial, 320 participants). The effects are probably not large enough to be of any clinical relevance. The 25 G 25 mm needle may produce a small reduction in the incidence of local reactions after each dose of a DTwP vaccine compared with the 23 G 25 mm needle, but the effect estimates are imprecise (low quality evidence, two trials, numbers of participants in analyses range from 100 to 459).The comparative effects of 23 G 25 mm, 25 G 25 mm, and 25 G 16 mm needles on the incidence of post-vaccination fever, persistent inconsolable crying, and other systemic events such as drowsiness, loss of appetite, and vomiting are uncertain due to the very low quality of the evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Using 25 mm needles (either 23 G or 25 G) for intramuscular vaccination procedures in the anterolateral thigh of infants using the WHO injection technique probably reduces the occurrence of local reactions while achieving a comparable immune response to 25 G 16 mm needles. These findings are applicable to healthy infants aged two to six months receiving combination DTwP vaccines with a reactogenic whole-cell pertussis antigen component. These vaccines are predominantly used in developing countries. The applicability of the findings to vaccines with acellular pertussis components and other vaccines with different reactogenicity profiles is uncertain.

Self-management education for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Self-management education may help patients with cystic fibrosis and their families to choose, monitor and adjust treatment requirements for their illness, and also to manage the effects of illness on their lives. Although self-management education interventions have been developed for cystic fibrosis, no previous systematic review of the evidence of effectiveness of these interventions has been conducted. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of self-management education interventions on improving health outcomes for patients with cystic fibrosis and their caregivers SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register (date of the last search: 22 August 2013).We also searched databases through EBSCO (CINAHL; Psychological and Behavioural Sciences Collection; PsychInfo; SocINDEX) and Elsevier (Embase) and handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings (date of the last searches: 01 February 2014 ). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing different types of self-management education for cystic fibrosis or comparing self-management education with standard care or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. Three authors extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials (involving a total of 269 participants) were included. The participants were children with cystic fibrosis and their parents or caregivers in three trials and adults with cystic fibrosis in one trial. The trials compared four different self-management education interventions versus standard treatment: (1) a training programme for managing cystic fibrosis in general; (2) education specific to aerosol and airway clearance treatments; (3) disease-specific nutrition education; and (4) general and disease-specific nutrition education. Training children to manage cystic fibrosis in general had no statistically significant effects on weight after six to eight weeks, mean difference -7.74 lb (i.e. 3.51 kg) (95% confidence interval -35.18 to 19.70). General and disease-specific nutrition education for adults had no statistically significant effects on: pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume at one second), mean difference -5.00 % (95% confidence interval -18.10 to 8.10) at six months and mean difference -5.50 % (95% confidence interval -18.46 to 7.46) at 12 months; or weight, mean difference - 0.70 kg (95% confidence interval -6.58 to 5.18) at six months and mean difference -0.70 kg (95% confidence interval -6.62 to 5.22) at 12 months; or dietary fat intake scores, mean difference 1.60 (85% confidence interval -2.90 to 6.10) at six months and mean difference 0.20 (95% confidence interval -4.08 to 4.48) at 12 months. There is some limited evidence to suggest that self-management education may improve knowledge in patients with cystic fibrosis but not in parents or caregivers. There is also some limited evidence to suggest that self-management education may result in positively changing a small number of behaviours in both patients and caregivers. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence from this review is of insufficient quantity and quality to draw any firm conclusions about the effects of self-management education for cystic fibrosis. Further trials are needed to investigate the effects of self-management education on a range of clinical and behavioural outcomes in children, adolescents and adults with cystic fibrosis and their caregivers.

Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients.

BACKGROUND: The frequency with which patients should attend for a dental check-up and the potential effects on oral health of altering recall intervals between check-ups have been the subject of ongoing international debate in recent decades. Although recommendations regarding optimal recall intervals vary between countries and dental healthcare systems, six-monthly dental check-ups have traditionally been advocated by general dental practitioners in many developed countries.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005, and previously updated in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of different fixed recall intervals (for example six months versus 12 months) for the following different types of dental check-up: a) clinical examination only; b) clinical examination plus scale and polish; c) clinical examination plus preventive advice; d) clinical examination plus preventive advice plus scale and polish.To determine the relative beneficial and harmful effects between any of these different types of dental check-up at the same fixed recall interval.To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of recall intervals based on clinicians' assessment of patients' disease risk with fixed recall intervals.To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of no recall interval/patient driven attendance (which may be symptomatic) with fixed recall intervals. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 27 September 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 27 September 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 27 September 2013). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/) for ongoing trials. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of some papers were contacted to identify further trials and obtain additional information. We did not apply any restrictions regarding language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different dental recall intervals. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the search results against the inclusion criteria of the review, extracted data and carried out risk of bias assessment. We contacted study authors for clarification or further information where necessary and feasible. If we had found more than one study with similar comparisons reporting the same outcomes, we would have combined the studies in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model if there were at least four studies, or a fixed-effect model if there were less than four studies. We expressed the estimate of effect as mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes. We would have used risk ratios with 95% CI for any dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included one study that analysed 185 participants. The study compared the effects of a clinical examination every 12 months with a clinical examination every 24 months on the outcomes of caries (decayed, missing, filled surfaces (dmfs/DMFS) increment) and economic cost outcomes (total time used per person). As the study was at high risk of bias, had a small sample size and only included low-risk participants, we rated the quality of the body of evidence for these outcomes as very low.For three to five-year olds with primary teeth, the mean difference (MD) in dmfs increment was -0.90 (95% CI -1.96 to 0.16) in favour of 12-month recall. For 16 to 20-year olds with permanent teeth, the MD in DMFS increment was -0.86 (95% CI -1.75 to 0.03) also in favour of 12-month recall. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether 12 or 24-month recall with clinical examination results in better caries outcomes.For three to five-year olds with primary teeth, the MD in time used by each participant was 10 minutes (95% CI -6.7 to 26.7) in favour of 24-month recall. For 16 to 20-year olds with permanent teeth, the MD was 23.7 minutes (95% CI 4.12 to 43.28) also in favour of 24-month recall. This single study at high risk of bias represents insufficient evidence to determine whether 12 or 24-month recall with clinical examination results in better time/cost outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a very low quality body of evidence from one RCT which is insufficient to draw any conclusions regarding the potential beneficial and harmful effects of altering the recall interval between dental check-ups. There is no evidence to support or refute the practice of encouraging patients to attend for dental check-ups at six-monthly intervals. It is important that high quality RCTs are conducted for the outcomes listed in this review in order to address the objectives of this review.

Routine scale and polish for periodontal health in adults.

BACKGROUND: Many dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even if those patients are considered to be at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is debate over the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of 'routine scaling and polishing' and the 'optimal' frequency at which it should be provided for healthy adults.A 'routine scale and polish' treatment is defined as scaling or polishing or both of the crown and root surfaces of teeth to remove local irritational factors (plaque, calculus, debris and staining), that does not involve periodontal surgery or any form of adjunctive periodontal therapy such as the use of chemotherapeutic agents or root planing. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were: 1) to determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health; 2) to determine the beneficial and harmful effects of providing routine scaling and polishing at different time intervals on periodontal health; 3) to compare the effects of routine scaling and polishing with or without oral hygiene instruction (OHI) on periodontal health; and 4) to compare the effects of routine scaling and polishing provided by a dentist or dental care professional (dental therapist or dental hygienist) on periodontal health. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 15 July 2013), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 15 July 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 15 July 2013). We searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov) for ongoing and completed studies to July 2013. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of routine scale and polish treatments (excluding split-mouth trials) with and without OHI in healthy dentate adults, without severe periodontitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MDs) (standardised mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data and, where results were meta-analysed, we used a fixed-effect model as there were fewer than four studies. Study authors were contacted where possible and where deemed necessary for missing information. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies were included in this review with 836 participants included in the analyses. All three studies are assessed as at unclear risk of bias. The numerical results are only presented here for the primary outcome gingivitis. There were no useable data presented in the studies for the outcomes of attachment change and tooth loss. No studies reported any adverse effects.- Objective 1: Scale and polish versus no scale and polish Only one trial provided data for the comparison between scale and polish versus no scale and polish. This study was conducted in general practice and compared both six-monthly and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments with no treatment. This study showed no evidence to claim or refute benefit for scale and polish treatments for the outcomes of gingivitis, calculus and plaque. The MD for six-monthly scale and polish, for the percentage of index teeth with bleeding at 24 months was -2% (95% CI -10% to 6%; P value = 0.65), with 40% of the sites in the control group with bleeding. The MD for 12-monthly scale and polish was -1% (95% CI -9% to 7%; P value = 0.82). The body of evidence was assessed as of low quality.- Objective 2: Scale and polish at different time intervals Two studies, both at unclear risk of bias, compared routine scale and polish provided at different time intervals. When comparing six with 12 months there was insufficient evidence to determine a difference for gingivitis at 24 months SMD -0.08 (95% CI -0.27 to 0.10). There were some statistically significant differences in favour of scaling and polishing provided at more frequent intervals, in particular between three and 12 months for the outcome of gingivitis at 24 months, with OHI, MD -0.14 (95% CI -0.23 to -0.05; P value = 0.003) and without OHI MD -0.21 (95% CI -0.30 to -0.12; P value < 0.001) (mean per patient measured on 0-3 scale), based on one study. There was some evidence of a reduction in calculus. This body of evidence was assessed as of low quality.- Objective 3: Scale and polish with and without OHIOne study provided data for the comparison of scale and polish treatment with and without OHI. There was a reduction in gingivitis for the 12-month scale and polish treatment when assessed at 24 months MD -0.14 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.06) in favour of including OHI. There were also significant reductions in plaque for both three and 12-month scale and polish treatments when OHI was included. The body of evidence was once again assessed as of low quality.- Objective 4: Scale and polish provided by a dentist compared with a dental care professionalNo studies were found which compared the effects of routine scaling and polishing provided by a dentist or dental care professional (dental therapist or dental hygienist) on periodontal health. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of routine scale and polish treatments. High quality trials conducted in general dental practice settings with sufficiently long follow-up periods (five years or more) are required to address the objectives of this review.

Self-management education for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Self-management education may help patients with cystic fibrosis and their families to choose, monitor and adjust treatment requirements for their illness, and also to manage the effects of illness on their lives. Although self-management education interventions have been developed for cystic fibrosis, no previous systematic review of the evidence of effectiveness of these interventions has been conducted. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of self-management education interventions on improving health outcomes for patients with cystic fibrosis and their caregivers SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register (date of the last search: 23 February 2011).We also searched databases through EBSCO (CINAHL; Psychological and Behavioural Sciences Collection; PsychInfo; SocINDEX) and Elsevier (EMBASE) and handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings (date of the last searches: 30th March 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing different types of self-management education for cystic fibrosis or comparing self-management education with standard care or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. Three authors extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials (involving a total of 269 participants) were included. The participants were children with cystic fibrosis and their parents or caregivers in three trials and adults with cystic fibrosis in one trial. The trials compared four different self-management education interventions versus standard treatment: (1) a training programme for managing cystic fibrosis in general; (2) education specific to aerosol and airway clearance treatments; (3) disease-specific nutrition education; and (4) general and disease-specific nutrition education. Training children to manage cystic fibrosis in general had no statistically significant effects on weight after six to eight weeks, mean difference -7.74 lb (95% confidence interval -35.18 to 19.70). General and disease-specific nutrition education for adults had no statistically significant effects on: pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume at one second), mean difference -5.00 % (95% confidence interval -18.10 to 8.10) at six months and mean difference -5.50 % (95% confidence interval -18.46 to 7.46) at 12 months; or weight, mean difference - 0.70 kg (95% confidence interval -6.58 to 5.18) at six months and mean difference -0.70 kg (95% confidence interval -6.62 to 5.22) at 12 months; or dietary fat intake scores, mean difference 1.60 (85% confidence interval -2.90 to 6.10) at six months and mean difference 0.20 (95% confidence interval -4.08 to 4.48) at 12 months. There is some limited evidence to suggest that self-management education may improve knowledge in patients with cystic fibrosis but not in parents or caregivers. There is also some limited evidence to suggest that self-management education may result in positively changing a small number of behaviours in both patients and caregivers. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence from this review is of insufficient quantity and quality to draw any firm conclusions about the effects of self-management education for cystic fibrosis. Further trials are needed to investigate the effects of self-management education on a range of clinical and behavioural outcomes in children, adolescents and adults with cystic fibrosis and their caregivers.

Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of treatment options for clinically localised prostate cancer continues to impact on clinical decision-making. Two such options are radical prostatectomy (RP) and watchful waiting (WW). WW involves providing no initial treatment and monitoring the patient with the intention of providing palliative treatment if there is evidence of disease progression. OBJECTIVES: To compare the beneficial and harmful effects of RP versus WW for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, ISI Science Citation Index, DARE and LILACS were searched through 30 July 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of RP versus WW for clinically localised prostate cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and quality assessment were carried out independently by two authors. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials met the inclusion criteria. Both trials commenced prior to the widespread availability of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening; hence the results may not be applicable to men with PSA-detected disease.One trial (N = 142), conducted in the US, was judged to be of poor quality. All cause (overall) mortality was not significantly different between RP and WW groups after fifteen years of follow up (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.9 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.43).The second trial (N = 695), conducted in Scandinavia, was judged to be of good quality. After 12 years of follow up, the trial results were compatible with a beneficial effect of RP on the risks of overall mortality, prostate cancer mortality and distant metastases compared with WW but the precise magnitude of the effect is uncertain as indicated by the width of the confidence intervals for all estimates (risk difference (RD) -7.1% (95% CI -14.7 to 0.5); RD -5.4% (95% CI -11.1 to 0.2); RD -6.7% (95% CI -13.2 to -0.2), respectively).        Compared to WW, RP increased the absolute risks of erectile dysfunction (RD 35% (95% CI 25 to 45)) and urinary leakage (RD 27% (95% CI 17 to 37)). These estimates must be interpreted cautiously as they are derived from data obtained from a self-administered questionnaire survey of a sample of the trial participants (N = 326), no baseline quality of life data were obtained and nerve-sparing surgery was not routinely performed on trial participants undergoing RP. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The existing trials provide insufficient evidence to allow confident statements to be made about the relative beneficial and harmful effects of RP and WW for patients with localised prostate cancer. The results of ongoing trials should help to inform treatment decisions for men with screen-detected localised prostate cancer.

Alcohol and drug screening of occupational drivers for preventing injury.

BACKGROUND: Workforce alcohol and drug testing is commonplace but its effect in reducing occupational injuries remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of alcohol and drug screening of occupational drivers (operating a motorised vehicle) in preventing injury or work-related effects such as sickness absence related to injury. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases up to June 2007 (or up to the latest issue then available): MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Occupational Health Field's specialised register, DARE, PsychINFO, ERIC, ETOH, CISDOC, NIOSHTIC, TRANSPORT, Zetoc, Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation index and HSELINE. We also searched reference lists, relevant websites and conducted hand searching. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies (more than three time points to be measured before and after the study) and interrupted time-series (ITS) studies that evaluated alcohol or drug screening interventions for occupational drivers (compared to another intervention or no intervention) with an outcome measured as a reduction in injury or a proxy measure thereof. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We contacted authors of the included studies for further information. MAIN RESULTS: We included two interrupted time-series studies conducted in the USA. One study was conducted in five large US transportation companies (N = 115,019) that carried passengers and/or cargo. Monthly injury rates were available from 1983 to 1999. In the study company, two interventions of interest were evaluated: mandatory random drug testing and mandatory random and for-cause alcohol testing programmes. The third study focused only on mandatory random drug testing and was conducted on federal injury data that covered all truck drivers of interstate carriers.We recalculated the results from raw data provided by the study authors. Following reanalysis, we found that in one study mandatory random and for-cause alcohol testing was associated with a significant decrease in the level of injuries immediately following the intervention (-1.25 injuries/100 person years, 95% CI -2.29 to -0.21) but did not significantly affect the existing long-term downward trend (-0.28 injuries/100 person years/year, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.21).Mandatory random drug testing was significantly associated with an immediate change in injury level following the intervention (1.26 injuries/100 person years, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.16) in one study, and in the second study there was no significant effect (-1.36/injuries/100 person years, 95% CI -1.69 to 0.41). In the long term, random drug testing was associated with a significant increase in the downward trend (-0.19 injuries/100 person years/year, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.07) in one study, the other study was also associated with a significant improvement in the long-term downward trend (-0.83 fatal accidents/100 million vehicle miles/year, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.58). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of drug and alcohol testing of occupational drivers for preventing injuries as a sole, effective, long-term solution in the context of workplace culture, peer interaction and other local factors. Cluster-randomised trials are needed to better address the effects of interventions for injury prevention in this occupational setting.