Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 11 de 11
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 4: CD012581, 2020 04 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32303107

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Nutritional rickets is a disease which affects children, especially in low- and middle-income countries. It causes problems such as skeletal deformities and impaired growth. The most common cause of nutritional rickets is vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D administered with or without calcium is commonly regarded as the mainstay of treatment. In some sunny countries, however, where children are believed to have adequate vitamin D production from exposure to ultraviolet light, but who are deficient in calcium due to low dietary intake, calcium alone has also been used in the treatment of nutritional rickets. Therefore, it is important to compare the effects of vitamin D, calcium or a combination of vitamin D and calcium for the treatment of nutritional rickets in children living in different settings. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of vitamin D, calcium or a combination of vitamin D and calcium for the treatment of nutritional rickets in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, WHO ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search of all databases was 25 July 2019. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) involving children aged 0 to 18 years with nutritional rickets which compared treatment with vitamin D, calcium or a combination of vitamin D and calcium. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the title and abstracts of all studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We resolved any disagreements by consensus or recourse to a third review author. We conducted meta-analyses for the outcomes reported by study authors. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) and, for continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs. We assessed the certainty of the evidence of the included studies using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 4562 studies; of these, we included four RCTs with 286 participants. The studies compared two or more of the following: vitamin D, calcium or vitamin D plus calcium. The number of participants randomised to receive vitamin D was 64, calcium was 102 and vitamin D plus calcium was 120. Two studies were conducted in India and two were conducted in Nigeria. None of the included studies had a low risk of bias in all domains. Three studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. The age of the participants ranged between six months and 14 years. The duration of follow-up ranged between 12 weeks and 24 weeks. Two studies compared vitamin D to calcium. There is low-certainty evidence that, at 24 weeks' follow-up, calcium alone improved the healing of rickets compared to vitamin D alone (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.59 to 6.69; P = 0.001; 1 study, 71 participants). Comparing vitamin D to calcium showed no firm evidence of an advantage or disadvantage in reducing morbidity (fractures) (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.32; P = 0.23; 1 study, 71 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Two studies compared vitamin D plus calcium to vitamin D at 12 or 24 weeks. Vitamin D plus calcium improved healing of rickets compared to vitamin D alone at 24 weeks' follow-up (RR 3.06, 95% CI 1.49 to 6.29; P = 0.002; 1 study, 75 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is no conclusive evidence in favour of either intervention for reducing morbidity (fractures) (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.08; P = 0.20; 1 study, 71 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or adverse events (RR 4.76, 95% CI 0.24 to 93.19; P = 0.30; 1 study, 39 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All four included studies compared vitamin D plus calcium to calcium at different follow-up times. There is no conclusive evidence on whether vitamin D plus calcium in comparison to calcium alone improved healing of rickets at 24 weeks' follow-up (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.90; P = 0.53; 2 studies, 140 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Evidence is also inconclusive for morbidity (fractures) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.76; P = 0.94; 1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and adverse events (RR 4.29, 0.22 to 83.57; P = 0.34; 1 study, 37 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Most of the evidence in the review is low or very low certainty due to risk of bias, imprecision or both. None of the included studies assessed all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life or socioeconomic effects. One study assessed growth pattern but this was not measured at the time-point stipulated in the protocol of our review (one or more years after commencement of therapy). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides low-certainty evidence that vitamin D plus calcium or calcium alone improve healing in children with nutritional rickets compared to vitamin D alone. We are unable to make conclusions on the effects of the interventions on adverse events or morbidity (fractures).


Asunto(s)
Calcio/uso terapéutico , Raquitismo/terapia , Vitamina D/uso terapéutico , Vitaminas/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Niño , Preescolar , Fracturas Óseas/epidemiología , Fracturas Óseas/prevención & control , Humanos , Lactante , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Raquitismo/etiología , Deficiencia de Vitamina D/complicaciones , Deficiencia de Vitamina D/terapia
2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 4: CD007094, 2018 04 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29633783

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. Cough can impact quality of life, cause anxiety, and affect sleep in children and their parents. Honey has been used to alleviate cough symptoms. This is an update of reviews previously published in 2014, 2012, and 2010. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2018, Issue 2), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (2014 to 8 February 2018), Embase (2014 to 8 February 2018), CINAHL (2014 to 8 February 2018), EBSCO (2014 to 8 February 2018), Web of Science (2014 to 8 February 2018), and LILACS (2014 to 8 February 2018). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 12 February 2018. The 2014 review included searches of AMED and CAB Abstracts, but these were not searched for this update due to lack of institutional access. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing honey alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus no treatment, placebo, honey-based cough syrup, or other over-the-counter cough medications for children aged 12 months to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included six randomised controlled trials involving 899 children; we added three studies (331 children) in this update.We assessed two studies as at high risk of performance and detection bias; three studies as at unclear risk of attrition bias; and three studies as at unclear risk of other bias.Studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, salbutamol, bromelin (an enzyme from the Bromeliaceae (pineapple) family), no treatment, and placebo. Five studies used 7-point Likert scales to measure symptomatic relief of cough; one used an unclear 5-point scale. In all studies, low score indicated better cough symptom relief.Using a 7-point Likert scale, honey probably reduces cough frequency better than no treatment or placebo (no treatment: mean difference (MD) -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 154 children; moderate-certainty evidence; placebo: MD -1.62, 95% CI -3.02 to -0.22; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Honey may have a similar effect as dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; I² = 87%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Honey may be better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence).Giving honey for up to three days is probably more effective in relieving cough symptoms compared with placebo or salbutamol. Beyond three days honey probably had no advantage over salbutamol or placebo in reducing cough severity, bothersome cough, and impact of cough on sleep for parents and children (moderate-certainty evidence). With a 5-point cough scale, there was probably little or no difference between the effects of honey and bromelin mixed with honey in reducing cough frequency and severity.Adverse events included nervousness, insomnia, and hyperactivity, experienced by seven children (9.3%) treated with honey and two children (2.7%) treated with dextromethorphan (risk ratio (RR) 2.94, 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 149 children; low-certainty evidence). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14, 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; 1 study; 80 children; low-certainty evidence). When honey was compared with placebo, 34 children (12%) in the honey group and 13 (11%) in the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies; 402 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Four children who received salbutamol had rashes compared to one child in the honey group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; 1 study; 100 children; moderate-certainty evidence). No adverse events were reported in the no-treatment group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey probably relieves cough symptoms to a greater extent than no treatment, diphenhydramine, and placebo, but may make little or no difference compared to dextromethorphan. Honey probably reduces cough duration better than placebo and salbutamol. There was no strong evidence for or against using honey. Most of the children received treatment for one night, which is a limitation to the results of this review. There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events between the honey and control arms.


Asunto(s)
Antitusígenos/uso terapéutico , Apiterapia/métodos , Tos/terapia , Dextrometorfano/uso terapéutico , Difenhidramina/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Albuterol/uso terapéutico , Antitusígenos/efectos adversos , Apiterapia/efectos adversos , Bromelaínas/uso terapéutico , Broncodilatadores/uso terapéutico , Niño , Preescolar , Dextrometorfano/efectos adversos , Difenhidramina/efectos adversos , Miel/efectos adversos , Humanos , Lactante , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
3.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (8): CD007719, 2016 Aug 31.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27580345

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Reduced vitamin A concentration increases the risk of blindness in children infected with the measles virus. Promoting vitamin A supplementation in children with measles contributes to the control of blindness in children, which is a high priority within the World Health Organization (WHO) VISION 2020 The Right to Sight Program. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of vitamin A in preventing blindness in children with measles without prior clinical features of vitamin A deficiency. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL 2015, Issue 11, MEDLINE (1950 to December week 3, 2015), Embase (1974 to December 2015) and LILACS (1985 to December 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of vitamin A in preventing blindness in well-nourished children diagnosed with measles but with no prior clinical features of vitamin A deficiency. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For the original review, two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and extracted data on reported outcomes. We contacted trial authors of the included studies for additional information on unpublished data. We included two RCTs which were clinically heterogenous. We presented the continuous outcomes reported as the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and dichotomous outcomes as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Due to marked clinical heterogeneity we considered it inappropriate to perform a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: For the first publication of this review, two RCTs involving 260 children with measles which compared vitamin A with placebo met the inclusion criteria. Neither study reported blindness or other ocular morbidities as end points. One trial of moderate quality suggested evidence of a significant increase in serum retinol levels in the vitamin A group one week after two doses of vitamin A (MD 9.45 µg/dL, 95% CI 2.19 to 16.71; 17 participants, moderate-quality evidence), but not six weeks after three doses of vitamin A (MD 2.56 µg/dL, 95% CI -5.28 to 10.40; 39 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in weight gain six weeks (MD 0.39 kg, -0.04 to 0.82; 48 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and six months (MD 0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.12; 36 participants, moderate-quality evidence) after three doses of vitamin A.The second trial found no significant difference in serum retinol levels two weeks after a single dose of vitamin A (MD 2.67 µg/dL, 95% CI -0.29 to 5.63; 155 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Percentage of undernutrition between the two groups did not differ significantly at one week (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.54, 145 participants) and two weeks (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.29, 147 participants) after a single dose of vitamin A. No adverse event was reported in either study. We did not find any new RCTS for this second update. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any trials assessing whether or not vitamin A supplementation in children with measles prevents blindness, as neither study reported blindness or other ocular morbidities as end points.


Asunto(s)
Ceguera/prevención & control , Sarampión/complicaciones , Vitamina A/administración & dosificación , Vitaminas/administración & dosificación , Adolescente , Ceguera/etiología , Niño , Preescolar , Humanos , Lactante , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Vitamina A/sangre , Vitaminas/sangre
4.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (12): CD007094, 2014 Dec 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25536086

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1950 to October week 4, 2014), EMBASE (1990 to November 2014), CINAHL (1981 to November 2014), Web of Science (2000 to November 2014), AMED (1985 to November 2014), LILACS (1982 to November 2014) and CAB abstracts (2009 to January 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing honey given alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from one to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs, two at high risk of bias and one at low risk of bias, involving 568 children. The studies compared honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, 'no treatment' and placebo for the effect on symptomatic relief of cough using a seven-point Likert scale. The lower the score, the better the cough symptom being assessed.Moderate quality evidence showed that honey may be better than 'no treatment' in reducing the frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to -0.62; I(2) statistic 23%; two studies, 154 participants). High quality evidence also suggests that honey may be better than placebo for reduction of cough frequency (MD -1.85; 95% Cl -3.36 to -0.33; one study, 300 participants). Moderate quality evidence suggests that honey does not differ significantly from dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07; 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; two studies, 149 participants). Low quality evidence suggests that honey may be slightly better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; one study, 80 participants).Adverse events included mild reactions (nervousness, insomnia and hyperactivity) experienced by seven children (9.3%) from the honey group and two (2.7%) from the dextromethorphan group; the difference was not significant (risk ratio (RR) 2.94; 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; two studies, 149 participants). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14; 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; one study, 80 participants). When honey was compared with placebo, four children (1.8%) in the honey group and one (1.3%) from the placebo group complained of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.33; 95% Cl 0.15 to 11.74). However, there was no significant difference between honey versus dextromethorphan, honey versus diphenhydramine or honey versus placebo. No adverse event was reported in the 'no treatment' group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey may be better than 'no treatment', diphenhydramine and placebo for the symptomatic relief of cough, but it is not better than dextromethorphan. None of the included studies assessed the effect of honey on 'cough duration' because intervention and follow-up were for one night only. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.


Asunto(s)
Antitusígenos/uso terapéutico , Apiterapia/métodos , Tos/terapia , Dextrometorfano/uso terapéutico , Difenhidramina/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Antitusígenos/efectos adversos , Apiterapia/efectos adversos , Niño , Preescolar , Dextrometorfano/efectos adversos , Difenhidramina/efectos adversos , Miel/efectos adversos , Humanos , Lactante , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
5.
Evid Based Child Health ; 9(2): 401-44, 2014 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25404607

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2011) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1950 to December week 4, 2011); EMBASE (1990 to January 2012); CINAHL (1981 to January 2012); Web of Science (2000 to January 2012); AMED (1985 to January 2012); LILACS (1982 to January 2012); and CAB abstracts (2009 to January 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing honey given alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from two to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs of high risk of bias involving 265 children. The studies compared the effect of honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine and 'no treatment' on symptomatic relief of cough using the 7-point Likert scale. Honey was better than 'no treatment' in reducing frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.53 to -0.60; two studies; 154 participants). Moderate quality evidence suggests honey did not differ significantly from dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07; 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; two studies; 149 participants). Low quality evidence suggests honey may be slightly better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; one study; 80 participants). Adverse events included mild reactions (nervousness, insomnia and hyperactivity) experienced by seven children (9.3%) from the honey group and two (2.7%) from the dextromethorphan group; the difference was not significant (risk ratio (RR) 2.94; 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; two studies; 149 participants). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14; 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; one study; 80 participants) but there was no significant difference between honey versus dextromethorphan or honey versus diphenhydramine. No adverse event was reported in the 'no treatment' group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey may be better than 'no treatment' and diphenhydramine in the symptomatic relief of cough but not better than dextromethorphan. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.

7.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (1): CD007719, 2014 Jan 16.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24436005

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Reduced vitamin A concentration increases the risk of blindness in children infected with the measles virus. Promoting vitamin A supplementation in children with measles contributes to the control of blindness in children, which is a high priority within the World Health Organization (WHO) VISION 2020 The Right to Sight Program. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of vitamin A in preventing blindness in children with measles without prior clinical features of vitamin A deficiency. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 2, MEDLINE (1950 to November week 2, 2013), EMBASE (1974 to November 2013) and LILACS (1985 to November 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of vitamin A in preventing blindness in well-nourished children diagnosed with measles but with no prior clinical features of vitamin A deficiency. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For the original review, two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and extracted data on reported outcomes. We contacted trial authors of the included studies for additional information on unpublished data. We included two RCTs which were clinically heterogenous. We presented the continuous outcomes reported as the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Due to marked clinical heterogeneity we considered it inappropriate to perform a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: For the first publication of this review, two RCTs involving 260 children with measles which compared vitamin A with placebo met the inclusion criteria. Neither study reported blindness or other ocular morbidities as end points. One trial of moderate quality suggested evidence of a significant increase in serum retinol levels in the vitamin A group one week after two doses of vitamin A (MD 9.45 µG/dL, 95% CI 2.19 to 16.71; 17 participants) but not six weeks after three doses of vitamin A (MD 2.56 µG/dL, 95% CI -5.28 to 10.40; 39 participants). There was no significant difference in weight gain six weeks (MD 0.39 kg, -0.04 to 0.82; 48 participants) and six months (MD 0.52 kg, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.12; 36 participants) after three doses of vitamin A. The second trial found no significant difference in serum retinol levels two weeks after a single dose of vitamin A (MD 2.67 µG/dL, 95% CI -0.29 to 5.63; 155 participants). No adverse event was reported in either study. We did not find any new randomised controlled trials for this update. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any trials assessing whether or not vitamin A supplementation in children with measles prevents blindness, as neither study reported blindness or other ocular morbidities as end points. However, vitamin A use in children should be encouraged for its proven clinical benefits.


Asunto(s)
Ceguera/prevención & control , Sarampión/complicaciones , Vitamina A/administración & dosificación , Vitaminas/administración & dosificación , Adolescente , Ceguera/etiología , Niño , Preescolar , Humanos , Lactante , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (3): CD007094, 2012 Mar 14.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22419319

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2011) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1950 to December week 4, 2011); EMBASE (1990 to January 2012); CINAHL (1981 to January 2012); Web of Science (2000 to January 2012); AMED (1985 to January 2012); LILACS (1982 to January 2012); and CAB abstracts (2009 to January 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing honey given alone, or in combination with antibiotics, versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from two to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs of high risk of bias involving 265 children. The studies compared the effect of honey with dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine and 'no treatment' on symptomatic relief of cough using the 7-point Likert scale.Honey was better than 'no treatment' in reducing frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.53 to -0.60; two studies; 154 participants). Moderate quality evidence suggests honey did not differ significantly from dextromethorphan in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.07; 95% CI -1.07 to 0.94; two studies; 149 participants). Low quality evidence suggests honey may be slightly better than diphenhydramine in reducing cough frequency (MD -0.57; 95% CI -0.90 to -0.24; one study; 80 participants).Adverse events included mild reactions (nervousness, insomnia and hyperactivity) experienced by seven children (9.3%) from the honey group and two (2.7%) from the dextromethorphan group; the difference was not significant (risk ratio (RR) 2.94; 95% Cl 0.74 to 11.71; two studies; 149 participants). Three children (7.5%) in the diphenhydramine group experienced somnolence (RR 0.14; 95% Cl 0.01 to 2.68; one study; 80 participants) but there was no significant difference between honey versus dextromethorphan or honey versus diphenhydramine. No adverse event was reported in the 'no treatment' group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Honey may be better than 'no treatment' and diphenhydramine in the symptomatic relief of cough but not better than dextromethorphan. There is no strong evidence for or against the use of honey.


Asunto(s)
Antitusígenos/uso terapéutico , Apiterapia/métodos , Tos/terapia , Dextrometorfano/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Antitusígenos/efectos adversos , Apiterapia/efectos adversos , Niño , Preescolar , Dextrometorfano/efectos adversos , Miel/efectos adversos , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
9.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (4): CD007719, 2011 Apr 13.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21491401

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Reduced vitamin A concentration increases the risk of blindness in children infected with the measles virus. Promoting vitamin A supplementation in children with measles contributes to the control of blindness in children, which is a high priority within the World Health Organization (WHO) VISION 2020 The Right to Sight Program. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of vitamin A in preventing blindness in children with measles without prior clinical features of vitamin A deficiency. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (2011, issue 1), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1950 to January 2011), EMBASE.com (1974 to January 2011) and LILACS (1985 to January 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of vitamin A in preventing blindness in well-nourished children diagnosed with measles but with no prior clinical features of vitamin A deficiency. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched the results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes. We contacted trial authors of the included studies for additional information on unpublished data. We included two RCTs which were clinically heterogenous. We presented the continuous outcomes reported as the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Due to marked clinical heterogeneity we considered it inappropriate to perform a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs involving 260 children with measles which compared vitamin A with placebo met the inclusion criteria. Neither study reported blindness or other ocular morbidities as end points. One trial of moderate quality suggested evidence of a significant increase in serum retinol levels in the vitamin A group one week after two doses of vitamin A (MD 9.45 µg/dL; 95% CI 2.19 to 16.71, 17 participants) but not six weeks after three doses of vitamin A (MD 2.56 µg/dL; 95% CI -5.28 to 10.40; 39 participants). There was no significant difference in weight gain six weeks (MD 0.39 kg; -0.04 to 0.82; 48 participants) and six months (MD 0.52 kg; 95% CI -0.08 to 1.12; 36 participants) after three doses of vitamin A. The second trial found no significant difference in serum retinol levels two weeks after a single dose of vitamin A (MD 2.67 µg/dL; 95% CI -0.29 to 5.63, 155 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any trials assessing whether or not vitamin A supplementation in children with measles prevents blindness. However, vitamin A use in children should be encouraged for its proven clinical benefits.


Asunto(s)
Ceguera/prevención & control , Sarampión/complicaciones , Vitamina A/administración & dosificación , Vitaminas/administración & dosificación , Adolescente , Ceguera/etiología , Niño , Preescolar , Humanos , Lactante , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
10.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; (1): CD007094, 2010 Jan 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20091616

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Cough causes concern for parents and is a major cause of outpatient visits. It can impact on quality of life, cause anxiety and affect sleep in parents and children. Several remedies, including honey, have been used to alleviate cough symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of honey for acute cough in children in ambulatory settings. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1950 to April Week 2 2009); EMBASE (1990 to April 2009); CINAHL (1982 to April 2009); Web of Science (2000 to April 2009); AMED (1985 to April 2009); and LILACS (1982 to April 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing honey given alone or in combination with antibiotics versus nothing, placebo or other over-the-counter (OTC) cough medications to participants aged from two to 18 years for acute cough in ambulatory settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results for eligible studies and extracted data on reported outcomes. Trial authors of the included study were contacted for additional information on unpublished data. MAIN RESULTS: One RCT of 108 children with upper respiratory tract infections comparing the effect of honey, dextromethorphan and no treatment on cough and sleep quality for coughing children and their parents was included. Comparing symptoms and sleep quality scores of children that received honey with those that received no treatment showed that honey was more effective in reducing frequency of cough (mean difference (MD) -0.99; 95% CI -1.63 to -0.35, bothersome cough (MD -0.93; 95% CI -1.76 to -0.10), and sleep quality of the child (MD -0.92; 95% CI -1.77 to -0.07); but did not differ significantly between the honey versus no treatment groups in resolving severity of cough (MD -0.69; 95% CI -1.46 to 0.07) and sleep quality of the parents (MD 0.80; 95% CI -1.67 to 0.07). Dextromethorphan and honey did not differ significantly on cough frequency (MD -0.49; 95% CI -1.15 to 0.17); cough severity (MD -0.50; 95% CI -1.28 to 0.29), bothersome cough (MD -0.29; 95% CI -1.14 to 0.56) and sleep quality of the children (MD -0.70; 95% CI -1.57 to 0.17) or their parents (MD -0.34; 95% CI -1.24 to 0.55). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of honey for acute cough in children.


Asunto(s)
Apiterapia , Tos/terapia , Antitusígenos/uso terapéutico , Niño , Dextrometorfano/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Trastornos del Sueño-Vigilia/terapia
11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19019212

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Pediatric liaison services attending to the psychological health needs of children with chronic physical illness are limited or virtually non-existent in Nigeria and most sub-Saharan African countries, and psychological problems complicate chronic physical illness in these children and their mothers. There exist needs to bring into focus the public health importance of developing liaison services to meet the psychological health needs of children who suffer from chronic physical illness in this environment. Sickle cell disease (SCD) and juvenile diabetes mellitus (JDM) are among the most common chronic physical health conditions in Nigerian children. This study compared the prevalence and pattern of emotional disorders and suicidal behavior among Nigerian children with SCD, JDM and a group of healthy children. Psychological distress in the mothers of these children that suffer chronic physical illness was also compared with psychological distress in mothers of healthy control children. METHODS: Forty-five children aged 9 to 17 years were selected for each group of SCD, JDM and controls. The SCD and JDM groups were selected by consecutive clinic attendance and the healthy children who met the inclusion criteria were selected from neighboring schools. The Youth version of the Computerized Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children, version IV (C- DISC- IV) was used to assess for diagnosis of emotional disorders in these children. Twelve-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ - 12) was used to assess for psychological distress in mothers of these children and healthy control children. RESULTS: Children with JDM were significantly more likely to experience DSM - IV emotional disorders than children with SCD and the healthy group (p = 0.005), while children with JDM and SCD were more likely to have 'intermediate diagnoses' of emotional disorders (p = 0.0024). Children with SCD and JDM had higher rates of suicidal ideation when compared to healthy control children and a higher prevalence of maternal psychological distress was found in their mothers when compared to the mothers of healthy children (p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: The higher prevalence of emotional disorders and suicidal ideation among children with SCD and JDM points to a need for development of liaison services in pediatric facilities caring for children with chronic physical illness to ensure holistic approach to their care. The proposed liaison services would also be able to provide family support interventions that would address the psychological distress experienced by the mothers of these children.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA