Interventions for fear of childbirth including tocophobia.

BACKGROUND: Many women experience fear of childbirth (FOC). While fears about childbirth may be normal during pregnancy, some women experience high to severe FOC. At the extreme end of the fear spectrum is tocophobia, which is considered a specific condition that may cause distress, affect well-being during pregnancy and impede the transition to parenthood. Various interventions have been trialled, which support women to reduce and manage high to severe FOC, including tocophobia. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for reducing fear of childbirth (FOC) compared with standard maternity care in pregnant women with high to severe FOC, including tocophobia. SEARCH METHODS: In July 2020, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We contacted researchers of trials which were registered and appeared to be ongoing. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials which recruited pregnant women with high or severe FOC (as defined by the individual trial), for treatment intended to reduce FOC. Two review authors independently screened and selected titles and abstracts for inclusion. We excluded quasi-randomised and cross-over trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological approaches as recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the studies for risk of bias. A third review author checked the data analysis for accuracy. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome was a reduction in FOC. Secondary outcomes were caesarean section, depression, birth preference for caesarean section or spontaneous vaginal delivery, and epidural use. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven trials with a total of 1357 participants. The interventions included psychoeducation, cognitive behavioural therapy, group discussion, peer education and art therapy. We judged four studies as high or unclear risk of bias in terms of allocation concealment; we judged three studies as high risk in terms of incomplete outcome data; and in all studies, there was a high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. None of the studies reported data about women's anxiety. Participating in non-pharmacological interventions may reduce levels of fear of childbirth, as measured by the Wijma Delivery Expectancy Questionnaire (W-DEQ), but the reduction may not be clinically meaningful (mean difference (MD) -7.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.19 to -1.97; 7 studies, 828 women; low-certainty evidence). The W-DEQ tool is scored from 0 to 165 (higher score = greater fear). Non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the number of women having a caesarean section (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89; 5 studies, 557 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between non-pharmacological interventions and usual care in depression scores measured with the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) (MD 0.09, 95% CI -1.23 to 1.40; 2 studies, 399 women; low-certainty evidence). The EPDS tool is scored from 0 to 30 (higher score = greater depression). Non-pharmacological interventions probably lead to fewer women preferring a caesarean section (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.89; 3 studies, 276 women; moderate-certainty evidence).  Non-pharmacological interventions may increase epidural use compared with usual care, but the 95% CI includes the possibility of a slight reduction in epidural use (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.48; 2 studies, 380 women; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effect of non-pharmacological interventions for women with high to severe fear of childbirth in terms of reducing fear is uncertain. Fear of childbirth, as measured by W-DEQ, may be reduced but it is not certain if this represents a meaningful clinical reduction of fear. There may be little or no difference in depression, but there may be a reduction in caesarean section delivery. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and measure birth satisfaction and anxiety.

Relief of pain due to uterine cramping/involution after birth.

BACKGROUND: Women may experience differing types of pain and discomfort following birth, including cramping pain (often called after-birth pain) associated with uterine involution, where the uterus contracts to reduce blood loss and return the uterus to its non-pregnant size. This is an update of a review first published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological pain relief/analgesia for the relief of after-birth pains following vaginal birth. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 October 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing two different types of analgesia or analgesia versus placebo or analgesia versus no treatment, for the relief of after-birth pains following vaginal birth. Types of analgesia included pharmacological and non-pharmacological. Quasi-randomised trials were not eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we include 28 studies (involving 2749 women). The evidence identified in this review comes from middle- to high-income countries. Generally the trials were at low risk of selection bias, performance bias and attrition bias, but some trials were at high risk of bias due to selective reporting and lack of blinding. Our GRADE certainty of evidence assessments ranged from moderate to very low certainty, with downgrading decisions based on study limitations, imprecision, and (for one comparison) indirectness. Most studies reported our primary outcome of adequate pain relief as reported by the women. No studies reported data relating to neonatal adverse events, duration of hospital stay, or breastfeeding rates. Almost half of the included studies (11/28) excluded breastfeeding women from participating, making the evidence less generalisable to a broader group of women. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) compared to placebo NSAIDs are probably better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45 to 1.91; 11 studies, 946 women; moderate-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may reduce the need for additional pain relief compared to placebo (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.33; 4 studies, 375 women; low-certainty evidence). There may be a similar risk of maternal adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.41; 9 studies, 598 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs compared to opioids NSAIDs are probably better than opioids for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57; 5 studies, 560 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of maternal adverse events (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; 3 studies, 255 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be better than opioids for the need for additional pain relief, but the wide CIs include the possibility that the two classes of drugs are similarly effective or that opioids are better (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.12; 2 studies, 232 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids compared to placebo Opioids may be better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; 5 studies, 299 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids may reduce the need for additional pain relief compared to placebo (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.82; 3 studies, 273 women; low-certainty evidence). Opioids may increase the risk of maternal adverse events compared with placebo, although the certainty of evidence is low (RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.55; 3 studies, 188 women; low-certainty evidence). Paracetamol compared to placebo Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if paracetamol is better than placebo for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, the need for additional pain relief, or risk of maternal adverse events (2 studies, 123 women). Paracetamol compared to NSAIDs Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if there are any differences between paracetamol and NSAIDs for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, or the risk of maternal adverse events. No data were reported about the need for additional pain relief comparing paracetamol and NSAIDs (2 studies, 112 women). NSAIDs compared to herbal analgesia We are uncertain if there are any differences between NSAIDs and herbal analgesia for adequate pain relief as reported by the women, the need for additional pain relief, or risk of maternal adverse events, because the certainty of evidence is very low (4 studies, 394 women). Transcutaneous nerve stimulation (TENS) compared to no TENS Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain if TENS is better than no TENS for adequate pain relief as reported by the women. No other data were reported comparing TENS with no TENS (1 study, 32 women). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NSAIDs may be better than placebo and are probably better than opioids at relieving pain from uterine cramping/involution following vaginal birth. NSAIDs and paracetamol may be as effective as each other, whereas opioids may be more effective than placebo. Due to low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of other forms of pain relief. Future trials should recruit adequate numbers of women and ensure greater generalisability by including breastfeeding women. In addition, further research is required, including a survey of postpartum women to describe appropriately their experience of uterine cramping and involution. We identified nine ongoing studies, which may help to increase the level of certainty of the evidence around pain relief due to uterine cramping in future updates of this review.

Treatments for breast engorgement during lactation.

BACKGROUND: Engorgement is the overfilling of breasts with milk, often occurring in the early days postpartum. It results in swollen, hard, painful breasts and may lead to premature cessation of breastfeeding, decreased milk production, cracked nipples and mastitis. Various treatments have been studied but little consistent evidence has been found on effective interventions. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of different treatments for engorgement in breastfeeding women. SEARCH METHODS: On 2 October 2019, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: All types of randomised controlled trials and all forms of treatment for breast engorgement were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility, extracted data, conducted 'Risk of bias' assessment and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: For this udpate, we included 21 studies (2170 women randomised) conducted in a variety of settings. Six studies used individual breasts as the unit of analysis. Trials examined a range of interventions: cabbage leaves, various herbal compresses (ginger, cactus and aloe, hollyhock), massage (manual, electromechanical, Oketani), acupuncture, ultrasound, acupressure, scraping therapy, cold packs, and medical treatments (serrapeptase, protease, oxytocin). Due to heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not possible and data were reported from single trials. Certainty of evidence was downgraded for limitations in study design, imprecision and for inconsistency of effects. We report here findings from key comparisons. Cabbage leaf treatments compared to control For breast pain, cold cabbage leaves may be more effective than routine care (mean difference (MD) -1.03 points on 0-10 visual analogue scale (VAS), 95% confidence intervals (CI) -1.53 to -0.53; 152 women; very low-certainty evidence) or cold gel packs (-0.63 VAS points, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.17; 152 women; very low-certainty evidence), although the evidence is very uncertain. We are uncertain about cold cabbage leaves compared to room temperature cabbage leaves, room temperature cabbage leaves compared to hot water bag, and cabbage leaf extract cream compared to placebo cream because the CIs were wide and included no effect. For breast hardness, cold cabbage leaves may be more effective than routine care (MD -0.58 VAS points, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.34; 152 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about cold cabbage leaves compared to cold gel packs because the CIs were wide and included no effect. For breast engorgement, room temperature cabbage leaves may be more effective than a hot water bag (MD -1.16 points on 1-6 scale, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.96; 63 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about cabbage leaf extract cream compared to placebo cream because the CIs were wide and included no effect. More women were satisfied with cold cabbage leaves than with routine care (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.64; 152 women; low certainty), or with cold gel packs (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.38; 152 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if women breastfeed longer following treatment with cold cabbage leaves than routine care because CIs were wide and included no effect. Breast swelling and adverse events were not reported. Compress treatments compared to control For breast pain, herbal compress may be more effective than hot compress (MD -1.80 VAS points, 95% CI -2.07 to -1.53; 500 women; low-certainty evidence). Massage therapy plus cactus and aloe compress may be more effective than massage therapy alone (MD -1.27 VAS points, 95% CI -1.75 to -0.79; 100 women; low-certainty evidence). In a comparison of cactus and aloe compress to massage therapy, the CIs were wide and included no effect. For breast hardness, cactus and aloe cold compress may be more effective than massage (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.87; 102 women; low-certainty evidence). Massage plus cactus and aloe cold compress may reduce the risk of breast hardness compared to massage alone (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.58; 100 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effects of compress treatments on breast engorgement and cessation of breastfeeding because the certainty of evidence was very low. Among women receiving herbal compress treatment, 2/250 experienced skin irritation compared to 0/250 in the hot compress group (moderate-certainty evidence). Breast swelling and women's opinion of treatment were not reported. Medical treatments compared to placebo Protease may reduce breast pain (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04, 0.74; low-certainty evidence; 59 women) and breast swelling (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.79; 59 women; low-certainty evidence), whereas serrapeptase may reduce the risk of engorgement compared to placebo (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.88; 59 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if serrapeptase reduces breast pain or swelling, or if oxytocin reduces breast engorgement compared to placebo, because the CIs were wide and included no effect. No women experienced adverse events in any of the groups receiving serrapeptase, protease or placebo (low-certainty evidence). Breast induration/hardness, women's opinion of treatment and breastfeeding cessation were not reported. Cold gel packs compared to control For breast pain, we are uncertain about the effectiveness of cold gel packs compared to control treatments because the certainty of evidence was very low. For breast hardness, cold gel packs may be more effective than routine care (MD -0.34 points on 1-6 scale, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.08; 151 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if women breastfeed longer following cold gel pack treatment compared to routine care because the CIs were wide and included no effect. There may be little difference in women's satisfaction with cold gel packs compared to routine care (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.40; 151 women; low-certainty evidence). Breast swelling, engorgement and adverse events were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although some interventions may be promising for the treatment of breast engorgement, such as cabbage leaves, cold gel packs, herbal compresses, and massage, the certainty of evidence is low and we cannot draw robust conclusions about their true effects. Future trials should aim to include larger sample sizes, using women - not individual breasts - as units of analysis.

Interventions for preventing mastitis after childbirth.

BACKGROUND: Despite the health benefits of breastfeeding, initiation and duration rates continue to fall short of international guidelines. Many factors influence a woman's decision to wean; the main reason cited for weaning is associated with lactation complications, such as mastitis. Mastitis is an inflammation of the breast, with or without infection. It can be viewed as a continuum of disease, from non-infective inflammation of the breast to infection that may lead to abscess formation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of preventive strategies (for example, breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies) on the occurrence or recurrence of non-infective or infective mastitis in breastfeeding women post-childbirth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 October 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of interventions for preventing mastitis in postpartum breastfeeding women. Quasi-randomised controlled trials and trials reported only in abstract form were eligible. We attempted to contact the authors to obtain any unpublished results, wherever possible.  Interventions for preventing mastitis may include: probiotics, specialist breastfeeding advice and holistic approaches.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials (3034 women). Nine trials (2395 women) contributed data. Generally, the trials were at low risk of bias in most domains but some were high risk for blinding, attrition bias, and selective reporting. Selection bias (allocation concealment) was generally unclear. The certainty of evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias and to imprecision (low numbers of women participating in the trials). Conflicts of interest on the part of trial authors, and the involvement of industry funders may also have had an impact on the certainty of the evidence. Most trials reported our primary outcome of incidence of mastitis but there were almost no data relating to adverse effects, breast pain, duration of breastfeeding, nipple damage, breast abscess or recurrence of mastitis. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may reduce the risk of mastitis more than placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 0.75; 2 trials; 399 women; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if probiotics reduce the risk of breast pain or nipple damage because the certainty of evidence is very low. Results for the biggest of these trials (639 women) are currently unavailable due to a contractual agreement between the probiotics supplier and the trialists. Adverse effects were reported in one trial, where no woman in either group experienced any adverse effects. Antibiotics versus placebo or usual care The risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and usual care or placebo (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.34; 3 trials; 429 women; low-certainty evidence). The risk of mastitis may be similar between antibiotics and fusidic acid ointment (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.81; 1 trial; 36 women; low-certainty evidence) or mupirocin ointment (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.05 to 3.89; 1 trial; 44 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. None of the trials reported adverse effects. Topical treatments versus breastfeeding advice The risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.22; 1 trial; 40 women; low-certainty evidence) and mupirocin ointment and breastfeeding advice (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.35; 1 trial; 48 women; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. One trial (42 women) compared topical treatments to each other. The risk of mastitis may be similar between fusidic acid and mupirocin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.00; low-certainty evidence) but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Specialist breastfeeding education versus usual care The risk of mastitis (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.95; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.37; 1 trial; 203 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Anti-secretory factor-inducing cereal versus standard cereal The risk of mastitis (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.72; 1 trial; 29 women; low-certainty evidence) and recurrence of mastitis (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.03 to 4.57; 1 trial; 7 women; low-certainty evidence) may be similar but we are uncertain due to the wide CIs. Adverse events were not reported. Acupoint massage versus routine care Acupoint massage probably reduces the risk of mastitis compared to routine care (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78;1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and breast pain (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.23; 1 trial; 400 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. Breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment versus routine care Breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may reduce risk of mastitis (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.21; 1 trial; 300 women; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that acupoint massage is probably better than routine care, probiotics may be better than placebo, and breast massage and low frequency pulse treatment may be better than routine care for preventing mastitis. However, it is important to note that we are aware of at least one large trial investigating probiotics whose results have not been made public, therefore, the evidence presented here is incomplete. The available evidence regarding other interventions, including breastfeeding education, pharmacological treatments and alternative therapies, suggests these may be little better than routine care for preventing mastitis but our conclusions are uncertain due to the low certainty of the evidence. Future trials should recruit sufficiently large numbers of women in order to detect clinically important differences between interventions and results of future trials should be made publicly available.

Bariatric surgery, lifestyle interventions and orlistat for severe obesity: the REBALANCE mixed-methods systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Adults with severe obesity [body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 35 kg/m2] have an increased risk of comorbidities and psychological, social and economic consequences. OBJECTIVES: Systematically review bariatric surgery, weight-management programmes (WMPs) and orlistat pharmacotherapy for adults with severe obesity, and evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database were searched (last searched in May 2017). REVIEW METHODS: Four systematic reviews evaluated clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and qualitative evidence for adults with a BMI of ≥ 35 kg/m2. Data from meta-analyses populated a microsimulation model predicting costs, outcomes and cost-effectiveness of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery and the most effective lifestyle WMPs over a 30-year time horizon from a NHS perspective, compared with current UK population obesity trends. Interventions were cost-effective if the additional cost of achieving a quality-adjusted life-year is < £20,000-30,000. RESULTS: A total of 131 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 26 UK studies, 33 qualitative studies and 46 cost-effectiveness studies were included. From RCTs, RYGB produced the greatest long-term weight change [-20.23 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -23.75 to -16.71 kg, at 60 months]. WMPs with very low-calorie diets (VLCDs) produced the greatest weight loss at 12 months compared with no WMPs. Adding a VLCD to a WMP gave an additional mean weight change of -4.41 kg (95% CI -5.93 to -2.88 kg) at 12 months. The intensive Look AHEAD WMP produced mean long-term weight loss of 6% in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (at a median of 9.6 years). The microsimulation model found that WMPs were generally cost-effective compared with population obesity trends. Long-term WMP weight regain was very uncertain, apart from Look AHEAD. The addition of a VLCD to a WMP was not cost-effective compared with a WMP alone. RYGB was cost-effective compared with no surgery and WMPs, but the model did not replicate long-term cost savings found in previous studies. Qualitative data suggested that participants could be attracted to take part in WMPs through endorsement by their health-care provider or through perceiving innovative activities, with WMPs being delivered to groups. Features improving long-term weight loss included having group support, additional behavioural support, a physical activity programme to attend, a prescribed calorie diet or a calorie deficit. LIMITATIONS: Reviewed studies often lacked generalisability to UK settings in terms of participants and resources for implementation, and usually lacked long-term follow-up (particularly for complications for surgery), leading to unrealistic weight regain assumptions. The views of potential and actual users of services were rarely reported to contribute to service design. This study may have failed to identify unpublished UK evaluations. Dual, blinded numerical data extraction was not undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was costly to deliver, but it was the most cost-effective intervention. Adding a VLCD to a WMP was not cost-effective compared with a WMP alone. Most WMPs were cost-effective compared with current population obesity trends. FUTURE WORK: Improved reporting of WMPs is needed to allow replication, translation and further research. Qualitative research is needed with adults who are potential users of, or who fail to engage with or drop out from, WMPs. RCTs and economic evaluations in UK settings (e.g. Tier 3, commercial programmes or primary care) should evaluate VLCDs with long-term follow-up (≥ 5 years). Decision models should incorporate relevant costs, disease states and evidence-based weight regain assumptions. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016040190. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit and Health Economics Research Unit are core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate.

Cancer and vitamin D supplementation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Low 25-hydroxyvitamin D status has been associated with a higher risk of cancer in epidemiologic studies. Objective: The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of vitamin D supplementation alone on cancer incidence and mortality. Design: A systematic review was undertaken. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, conference abstracts, and clinical trial registries were searched (last search March 2017) for RCTs investigating vitamin D supplementation alone. RCTs with ≥12 mo of follow-up and in participants with a mean or median age ≥60 y were eligible. During-study events were used as the main analysis, but after-study events were included in a secondary analysis. Subgroup analyses concerning different forms of vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D status at baseline, vitamin D dose, and exclusion of open-label trials were undertaken. Results: Thirty studies in 18,808 participants were included in the systematic review, with a median follow-up ranging from 1 to 6.2 y. The results of the meta-analysis for during-study events showed no evidence of an effect of vitamin D supplementation for cancer incidence (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.15) and cancer-related deaths (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.70, 1.09). Including after-study events, the RRs were 1.02 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.13) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.72, 1.03), respectively. These results did not appear to be affected by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D status, vitamin D dose, or the exclusion of open-label trials. Conclusion: We did not find evidence to suggest that vitamin D supplementation alone reduces the incidence of cancer or cancer mortality, even after including long-term follow-up results.

Electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices for stress urinary incontinence in women.

BACKGROUND: Several treatment options are available for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), including pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), drug therapy and surgery. Problems exist such as adherence to PFMT regimens, side effects linked to drug therapy and the risks associated with surgery. We have evaluated an alternative treatment, electrical stimulation (ES) with non-implanted devices, which aims to improve pelvic floor muscle function to reduce involuntary urine loss. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices, alone or in combination with other treatment, for managing stress urinary incontinence or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence in women. Among the outcomes examined were costs and cost-effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearches of journals and conference proceedings (searched 27 February 2017). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and undertook separate searches to identify studies examining economic data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of ES with non-implanted devices compared with any other treatment for SUI in women. Eligible trials included adult women with SUI or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI). We excluded studies of women with urgency-predominant MUI, urgency urinary incontinence only, or incontinence associated with a neurologic condition. We would have included economic evaluations had they been conducted alongside eligible trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from eligible trials and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We would have performed economic evaluations using the approach recommended by Cochrane Economic Methods. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 56 eligible trials (3781 randomised participants). Eighteen trials did not report the primary outcomes of subjective cure, improvement of SUI or incontinence-specific quality of life (QoL). The risk of bias was generally unclear, as most trials provided little detail when reporting their methods. We assessed 25% of the included trials as being at high risk of bias for a variety of reasons, including industry funding and baseline differences between groups. We did not identify any economic evaluations.For subjective cure of SUI, we found moderate-quality evidence that ES is probably better than no active treatment (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.02). We found a similar result for cure or improvement of SUI (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.11), but the quality of evidence was lower. We are very uncertain if there is a difference between ES and sham treatment in terms of subjective cure because of the very low quality of evidence (RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.38 to 12.73). For subjective cure or improvement, ES may be better than sham treatment (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.02 to 4.07). The effect estimate was 660/1000 women cured/improved with ES compared to 382/1000 with no active treatment (95% CI 538 to 805 women); and for sham treatment, 402/1000 women cured/improved with ES compared to 198/1000 with sham treatment (95% CI 202 to 805 women).Low-quality evidence suggests that there may be no difference in cure or improvement for ES versus PFMT (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.03), PFMT plus ES versus PFMT alone (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.28) or ES versus vaginal cones (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21).Electrical stimulation probably improves incontinence-specific QoL compared to no treatment (moderate quality evidence) but there may be little or no difference between electrical stimulation and PFMT (low quality evidence). It is uncertain whether adding electrical stimulation to PFMT makes any difference in terms of quality of life, compared with PFMT alone (very low quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between electrical stimulation and vaginal cones in improving incontinence-specific QoL (low quality evidence). The impact of electrical stimulation on subjective cure/improvement and incontinence-specific QoL, compared with vaginal cones, PFMT plus vaginal cones, or drugs therapy, is uncertain (very low quality evidence).In terms of subjective cure/improvement and incontinence-specific QoL, the available evidence comparing ES versus drug therapy or PFMT plus vaginal cones was very low quality and inconclusive. Similarly, comparisons of different types of ES to each other and of ES plus surgery to surgery are also inconclusive in terms of subjective cure/improvement and incontinence-specific QoL (very low-quality evidence).Adverse effects were rare: in total nine of the women treated with ES in the trials reported an adverse effect. We identified insufficient evidence to compare the risk of adverse effects in women treated with ES compared to any other treatment. We were unable to identify any economic data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence base indicated that electrical stimulation is probably more effective than no active or sham treatment, but it is not possible to say whether ES is similar to PFMT or other active treatments in effectiveness or not. Overall, the quality of the evidence was too low to provide reliable results. Without sufficiently powered trials measuring clinically important outcomes, such as subjective assessment of urinary incontinence, we cannot draw robust conclusions about the overall effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of electrical stimulation for stress urinary incontinence in women.

Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Several options exist for managing overactive bladder (OAB), including electrical stimulation (ES) with non-implanted devices, conservative treatment and drugs. Electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices aims to inhibit contractions of the detrusor muscle, potentially reducing urinary frequency and urgency. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of ES with non-implanted electrodes for OAB, with or without urgency urinary incontinence, compared with: placebo or any other active treatment; ES added to another intervention compared with the other intervention alone; different methods of ES compared with each other. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 10 December 2015). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted specialists in the field. We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of ES with non-implanted devices compared with any other treatment for OAB in adults. Eligible trials included adults with OAB with or without urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). Trials whose participants had stress urinary incontinence (SUI) were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from eligible trials and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 63 eligible trials (4424 randomised participants). Forty-four trials did not report the primary outcomes of perception of cure or improvement in OAB. The majority of trials were deemed to be at low or unclear risk of selection and attrition bias and unclear risk of performance and detection bias. Lack of clarity with regard to risk of bias was largely due to poor reporting.For perception of improvement in OAB symptoms, moderate-quality evidence indicated that ES was better than pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.14; n = 195), drug treatment (RR 1.20, 95% 1.04 to 1.38; n = 439). and placebo or sham treatment (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.85 to 2.77, n = 677) but it was unclear if ES was more effective than placebo/sham for urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) (RR 5.03, 95% CI 0.28 to 89.88; n = 242). Drug treatments included in the trials were oestrogen cream, oxybutynin, propantheline bromide, probanthine, solifenacin succinate, terodiline, tolterodine and trospium chloride.Low- or very low-quality evidence suggested no evidence of a difference in perception of improvement of UUI when ES was compared to PFMT with or without biofeedback.Low- quality evidence indicated that OAB symptoms were more likely to improve with ES than with no active treatment (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.55; n = 121).Low- quality evidence suggested participants receiving ES plus PFMT, compared to those receiving PFMT only, were more than twice as likely to report improvement in UUI (RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.44 to 5.52; n = 51).There was inconclusive evidence, which was either low- or very low-quality, for OAB-related quality of life when ES was compared to no active treatment, placebo/sham or biofeedback-assisted PFMT, or when ES was added to PFMT compared to PFMT-only. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial to suggest that ES may be better than PFMT in terms of OAB-related quality of life.There was a lower risk of adverse effects with ES than tolterodine (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.27; n = 200) (moderate-quality evidence) and oxybutynin (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.84; n = 79) (low-quality evidence).Due to the very low-quality evidence available, we could not be certain whether there were fewer adverse effects with ES compared to placebo/sham treatment, magnetic stimulation or solifenacin succinate. We were also very uncertain whether adding ES to PFMT or to drug therapy resulted in fewer adverse effects than PFMT or drug therapy alone Nor could we tell if there was any difference in risk of adverse effects between different types of ES.There was insufficient evidence to determine if one type of ES was more effective than another or if the benefits of ES persisted after the active treatment period stopped. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Electrical stimulation shows promise in treating OAB, compared to no active treatment, placebo/sham treatment, PFMT and drug treatment. It is possible that adding ES to other treatments such as PFMT may be beneficial. However, the low quality of the evidence base overall means that we cannot have full confidence in these conclusions until adequately powered trials have been carried out, measuring subjective outcomes and adverse effects.

Electrical stimulation with non-implanted electrodes for overactive bladder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Several options exist for managing overactive bladder (OAB), including electrical stimulation (ES) with non-implanted devices, conservative treatment and drugs. Electrical stimulation with non-implanted devices aims to inhibit contractions of the detrusor muscle, potentially reducing urinary frequency and urgency. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of: ES with non-implanted electrodes compared with placebo or any other active treatment for OAB; ES added to another intervention compared with the other intervention alone; different methods of ES compared with each other. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 10 December 2014). We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted specialists in the field. We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of ES with non-implanted devices compared with any other treatment for OAB in adults. Eligible trials included adults with OAB with or without urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). Trials whose participants had stress urinary incontinence (SUI) were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data from eligible trials and assessed risk of bias, using the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 51 eligible trials (3443 randomised participants). Thirty-three trials did not report the primary outcomes of subjective change in OAB symptoms. The majority of trials were deemed to be at low or unclear risk of selection and attrition bias and unclear risk of performance and detection bias. Lack of clarity with regard to risk of bias was largely due to poor reporting.Twenty-three trials (1654 participants) compared ES with no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment. Moderate-quality evidence indicated that OAB symptoms were more likely to improve in people receiving ES than with no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment (relative risk (RR) for no improvement 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.63). Moderate-quality evidence indicated that similar numbers of people receiving ES and no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment experienced adverse effects.Eight trials (542 participants) compared ES with conservative treatment. Very low-quality evidence suggested no evidence of a difference between ES and PFMT or PFMT plus biofeedback in OAB symptoms (RR for no improvement 0.79, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.21 and 0.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.57 respectively). There was no evidence of a difference between ES and conservative treatment with regard to adverse effects.Sixteen trials (894 participants) compared ES with drug treatment (probanthine, tolterodine, oxybutynin, propantheline bromide, solifenacin succinate, terodiline, trospium chloride, terodiline). Moderate-quality evidence indicated that OAB symptoms were more likely to improve with ES than drug treatment (RR for no improvement 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90). Low-quality evidence suggested a greater risk of adverse effects with oxybutynin (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.49) and with tolterodine (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.89) than with ES. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between ES and trospium hydrochloride (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.25).Eight trials (252 participants) compared ES combined with another treatment versus the other treatment alone, two trials (48 participants) compared ES plus conservative treatment with no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment and six trials (361 participants) compared different types of ES. None of these comparisons had sufficient evidence to indicate any differences between the treatment groups in terms of OAB or adverse effects.Moderate-quality evidence suggested that ES improved OAB-related quality of life more than no active treatment, placebo or sham treatment. There was insufficient evidence of any difference between ES and any other treatment with regard to quality of life.There was insufficient evidence to determine if the benefits of ES persisted after the active treatment period stopped. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Electrical stimulation appeared to be more effective than both no treatment and drug treatment for OAB. There was insufficient evidence to determine if ES was more effective than conservative treatment or which type of ES was more effective. This review underlines the need to conduct well-designed trials in this field measuring subjective outcomes and adverse effects.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of bipolar compared with monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

To compare monopolar and bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for clinical effectiveness and adverse events. We conducted an electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index, and also searched reference lists of articles and abstracts from conference proceedings for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monopolar and bipolar TURP. Two reviewers independently undertook data extraction and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials using the tool recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. From the 949 abstracts that were identified, 94 full texts were assessed for eligibility and a total of 24 trials were included in the review. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) or health-related quality of life (HRQL) score. Results for maximum urinary flow rate were significant at 3, 6 and 12 months (all P < 0.001), but no clinically significant differences were found and the meta-analysis showed evidence of heterogeneity Bipolar TURP was associated with fewer adverse events including transurethral resection syndrome (risk ratio [RR] 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-0.31, P < 0.001), clot retention (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30-0.77, P = 0.002) and blood transfusion (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.82, P = 0.004) Several major methodological limitations were identified in the included trials; 22/24 trials had a short follow-up of ≤1 year, there was no evidence of a sample size calculation in 20/24 trials and the application of GRADE showed the evidence for most of the assessed outcomes to be of moderate quality, including all those in which statistical differences were found. Whilst there is no overall difference between monopolar and bipolar TURP for clinical effectiveness, bipolar TURP is associated with fewer adverse events and therefore has a superior safety profile. Various methodological limitations were highlighted in the included trials and as such the results of this review should be interpreted with caution. There is a need for further well-conducted, multicentre RCTs with long-term follow-up data.

Systematic review of perioperative and quality-of-life outcomes following surgical management of localised renal cancer.

CONTEXT: For the treatment of localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC), uncertainties remain over the perioperative and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes for the many different surgical techniques and approaches of nephrectomy. Controversy also remains on whether newer minimally invasive nephron-sparing interventions offer better QoL and perioperative outcomes, and whether adrenalectomy and lymphadenectomy should be performed simultaneously with nephrectomy. These non-oncological outcomes are important because they may have a considerable impact on localised RCC treatment decision making. OBJECTIVE: To review systematically all the relevant published literature comparing perioperative and QoL outcomes of surgical management of localised RCC (T1-2N0M0). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2012. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials, prospective observational studies with controls, retrospective matched-pair studies, and comparative studies from well-defined registries/databases were included. The outcome measures were QoL, analgesic requirement, length of hospital stay, time to normal activity level, surgical morbidity and complications, ischaemia time, renal function, blood loss, length of operation, need for blood transfusion, and perioperative mortality. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs, and an extended version was used to assess nonrandomised studies (NRSs). The quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 4580 abstracts and 380 full-text articles were assessed, and 29 studies met the inclusion criteria (7 RCTs and 22 NRSs). There were high risks of bias and low-quality evidence for studies meeting the inclusion criteria. There is good evidence indicating that partial nephrectomy results in better preservation of renal function and better QoL outcomes than radical nephrectomy regardless of technique or approach. Regarding radical nephrectomy, the laparoscopic approach has better perioperative outcomes than the open approach, and there is no evidence of a difference between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. Alternatives to standard laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) such as hand-assisted, robot-assisted, or single-port techniques appear to have similar perioperative outcomes. There is no good evidence to suggest that minimally invasive procedures such as cryotherapy or radiofrequency ablation have superior perioperative or QoL outcomes to nephrectomy. Regarding concomitant lymphadenectomy during nephrectomy, there were low event rates for complications, and no definitive difference was observed. There was no evidence to base statements about concomitant ipsilateral adrenalectomy during nephrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Partial nephrectomy results in significantly better preservation of renal function over radical nephrectomy. For tumours where partial nephrectomy is not technically feasible, there is no evidence that alternative procedures or techniques are better than LRN in terms of perioperative or QoL outcomes. In making treatment decisions, perioperative and QoL outcomes should be considered in conjunction with oncological outcomes. Overall, there was a paucity of data regarding QoL outcomes, and when reported, both QoL and perioperative outcomes were inconsistently defined, measured, or reported. The current evidence base has major limitations due to studies of low methodological quality marked by high risks of bias.

Is photodynamic therapy a good alternative to surgery and radiotherapy in the treatment of head and neck cancer?

The mainstay treatments for head and neck carcinomas are surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. These treatment options may be associated with considerable complications. Radical radiotherapy and chemotherapy can generally be employed only once, which presents difficulties in cases of recurrent disease or second primaries within the irradiated field. Salvage surgery at the same site is often difficult, due to progressive tissue loss. In this respect photodynamic therapy (PDT) seems to be a good alternative treatment option for small, localized tumors; with a good outcome and with excellent functional and cosmetic results. Selected patients with advanced cancer of the head and neck, who have exhausted other treatment options, can also achieve improvement in quality of life with PDT. The advantages of PDT compared with surgery or radiotherapy are reduced long-term morbidity and the fact that PDT does not compromise future treatment options for recurrent, residual or second primary disease.

Evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foot orthoses in the treatment of plantar heel pain: a feasibility study.

This study evaluated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two different types of foot orthoses used to treat plantar heel pain. Forty-eight patients were randomly assigned to receive either a functional or an accommodative orthosis. General (EuroQol) and specific (Foot Health Status Questionnaire) health-status measures were used. Data were also collected using economic questionnaires relating to National Health Service costs for podiatry, other health-service costs, and patient costs. Data were measured at baseline and at 4- and 8-week intervals. Thirty-five patients completed the study. The results demonstrated a significant decrease in foot pain and a significant increase in foot function with the functional foot orthoses over the 8-week trial. The accommodative foot orthoses demonstrated a significant reduction in foot pain only at 4 weeks. The cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that functional orthoses, although initially more expensive, result in a better quality of life. Use of functional orthoses resulted in an increased cost of pound 17.99 (32.74 dollars) per patient, leading to an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year of pound 1,650 (3,003 dollars) for functional orthoses.