Ultrasound-guided transvaginal ovarian needle drilling for clomiphene-resistant polycystic ovarian syndrome in subfertile women.

BACKGROUND: Ovulatory disturbance is a key diagnostic feature of polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), leading to infertility and correspondingly heavy disease burden. Many therapeutic strategies have been used to induce ovulation for women with PCOS who are infertile. Ultrasound-guided transvaginal ovarian needle drilling (UTND) is a novel surgical method used to induce ovulation for women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS at the outpatient clinic.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of UTND for subfertile women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases to December 2020. We checked conference abstracts, reference lists, and clinical trials registries. We also contacted experts and specialists in the field for any additional trials . SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials comparing UTND to laparoscopic ovarian drilling, and UTND combined with gonadotropins to gonadotropins, in women of reproductive age with clomiphene-resistant PCOS and infertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the trials identified by the search for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were live birth rate and incidence of surgical complications (bleeding and infection). Secondary outcomes included pregnancy rate, ovulation rate, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. We planned to calculate odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous data. We would assess overall quality of the evidence by applying the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any trials for inclusion in the review. We were unable to assess the benefit or harm of applying UTND for women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS, as no studies could be included in the current review. We moved the previously included trials to studies awaiting classification due to concerns regarding methodology. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since we did not identify any studies for inclusion, we were unable to assess the benefit or harm of applying UTND for women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS.

Thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Thrombolytic therapy is usually reserved for people with clinically serious or massive pulmonary embolism (PE). Evidence suggests that thrombolytic agents may dissolve blood clots more rapidly than heparin and may reduce the death rate associated with PE. However, there are still concerns about the possible risk of adverse effects of thrombolytic therapy, such as major or minor haemorrhage. This is the fourth update of the Cochrane review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of thrombolytic therapy for acute pulmonary embolism. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 17 August 2020. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared thrombolytic therapy followed by heparin versus heparin alone, heparin plus placebo, or surgical intervention for people with acute PE (massive/submassive). We did not include trials comparing two different thrombolytic agents or different doses of the same thrombolytic drug. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (ZZ, QH) assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of trials and extracted data. We calculated effect estimates using the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) or the mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI. The primary outcomes of interest were death, recurrence of PE and haemorrhagic events. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three new studies for inclusion in this update. We included 21 trials in the review, with a total of 2401 participants. No studies compared thrombolytics versus surgical intervention. We were not able to include one study in the meta-analysis because it provided no extractable data. Most studies carried a high or unclear risk of bias related to randomisation and blinding. Meta-analysis showed that, compared to control (heparin alone or heparin plus placebo), thrombolytics plus heparin probably reduce both the odds of death (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.88; 19 studies, 2319 participants; low-certainty evidence), and recurrence of PE (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.91; 12 studies, 2050 participants; low-certainty evidence). Effects on mortality weakened when six studies at high risk of bias were excluded from analysis (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13; 13 studies, 2046 participants) and in the analysis of submassive PE participants (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.02; 1993 participants). Effects on recurrence of PE also weakened after removing one study at high risk of bias for sensitivity analysis (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.04; 11 studies, 1949 participants). We downgraded the certainty of evidence to low because of 'Risk of bias' concerns. Major haemorrhagic events were probably more common in the thrombolytics group than in the control group (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.92 to 4.20; 15 studies, 2101 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), as were minor haemorrhagic events (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.66 to 5.30; 13 studies,1757 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate or low because of 'Risk of bias' concerns and inconsistency. Haemorrhagic stroke may occur more often in the thrombolytics group than in the control group (OR 7.59, 95% CI 1.38 to 41.72; 2 studies, 1091 participants). Limited data indicated that thrombolytics may benefit haemodynamic outcomes, perfusion lung scanning, pulmonary angiogram assessment, echocardiograms, pulmonary hypertension, coagulation parameters, composite clinical outcomes, need for escalation and survival time to a greater extent than heparin alone. However, the heterogeneity of the studies and the small number of participants involved warrant caution when interpreting results. The length of hospital stay was shorter in the thrombolytics group than in the control group (mean difference (MD) -1.40 days, 95% CI -2.69 to -0.11; 5 studies, 368 participants). Haemodynamic decompensation may occur less in the thrombolytics group than in the control group (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.66; 3 studies, 1157 participants). Quality of life was similar between the two treatment groups. None of the included studies provided data on post-thrombotic syndrome or on cost comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence suggests that thrombolytics may reduce death following acute pulmonary embolism compared with heparin (the effectiveness was mainly driven by one trial with massive PE). Thrombolytic therapy may be helpful in reducing the recurrence of pulmonary emboli but may cause more major and minor haemorrhagic events, including haemorrhagic stroke. More studies of high methodological quality are needed to assess safety and cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy for people with pulmonary embolism.

Topical azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulphur, zinc and fruit acid (alpha-hydroxy acid) for acne.

BACKGROUND: Acne is an inflammatory disorder with a high global burden. It is common in adolescents and primarily affects sebaceous gland-rich areas. The clinical benefit of the topical acne treatments azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, sulphur, zinc, and alpha-hydroxy acid is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of topical treatments (azelaic acid, salicylic acid, nicotinamide, zinc, alpha-hydroxy acid, and sulphur) for acne. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to May 2019: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Clinical randomised controlled trials of the six topical treatments compared with other topical treatments, placebo, or no treatment in people with acne. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Key outcomes included participants' global self-assessment of acne improvement (PGA), withdrawal for any reason, minor adverse events (assessed as total number of participants who experienced at least one minor adverse event), and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included 49 trials (3880 reported participants) set in clinics, hospitals, research centres, and university settings in Europe, Asia, and the USA. The vast majority of participants had mild to moderate acne, were aged between 12 to 30 years (range: 10 to 45 years), and were female. Treatment lasted over eight weeks in 59% of the studies. Study duration ranged from three months to three years. We assessed 26 studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain, but most domains were at low or unclear risk of bias. We grouped outcome assessment into short-term (less than or equal to 4 weeks), medium-term (from 5 to 8 weeks), and long-term treatment (more than 8 weeks). The following results were measured at the end of treatment, which was mainly long-term for the PGA outcome and mixed length (medium-term mainly) for minor adverse events. Azelaic acid In terms of treatment response (PGA), azelaic acid is probably less effective than benzoyl peroxide (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.95; 1 study, 351 participants), but there is probably little or no difference when comparing azelaic acid to tretinoin (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.14; 1 study, 289 participants) (both moderate-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in PGA when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.38; 1 study, 229 participants; low-quality evidence), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence indicates there may be no differences in rates of withdrawal for any reason when comparing azelaic acid with benzoyl peroxide (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.29; 1 study, 351 participants), clindamycin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.56; 2 studies, 329 participants), or tretinoin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.47; 2 studies, 309 participants), but we are uncertain whether there is a difference between azelaic acid and adapalene (1 study, 55 participants; very low-quality evidence). In terms of total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is a difference between azelaic acid compared to adapalene (1 study; 55 participants) or benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 30 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). There may be no difference when comparing azelaic acid to clindamycin (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.35; 1 study, 100 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the comparison of azelaic acid versus tretinoin, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling. Salicylic acid For PGA, there may be little or no difference between salicylic acid and tretinoin (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 1 study, 46 participants; low-quality evidence); we are not certain whether there is a difference between salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (1 study, 86 participants; very low-quality evidence); and PGA was not measured in the comparison of salicylic acid versus benzoyl peroxide. There may be no difference between groups in withdrawals when comparing salicylic acid and pyruvic acid (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.50; 1 study, 86 participants); when salicylic acid was compared to tretinoin, neither group had withdrawals (both based on low-quality evidence (2 studies, 74 participants)). We are uncertain whether there is a difference in withdrawals between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants; very low-quality evidence). For total minor adverse events, we are uncertain if there is any difference between salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide (1 study, 41 participants) or tretinoin (2 studies, 74 participants) (both very low-quality evidence). This outcome was not reported for salicylic acid versus pyruvic acid, but individual application site reactions were reported, such as scaling and redness. Nicotinamide Four studies evaluated nicotinamide against clindamycin or erythromycin, but none measured PGA. Low-quality evidence showed there may be no difference in withdrawals between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.60; 3 studies, 216 participants) or erythromycin (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.22; 1 study, 158 participants), or in total minor adverse events between nicotinamide and clindamycin (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; 3 studies, 216 participants; low-quality evidence). Total minor adverse events were not reported in the nicotinamide versus erythromycin comparison. Alpha-hydroxy (fruit) acid There may be no difference in PGA when comparing glycolic acid peel to salicylic-mandelic acid peel (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26; 1 study, 40 participants; low-quality evidence), and we are uncertain if there is a difference in total minor adverse events due to very low-quality evidence (1 study, 44 participants). Neither group had withdrawals (2 studies, 84 participants; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to benzoyl peroxide, azelaic acid probably leads to a worse treatment response, measured using PGA. When compared to tretinoin, azelaic acid probably makes little or no difference to treatment response. For other comparisons and outcomes the quality of evidence was low or very low. Risk of bias and imprecision limit our confidence in the evidence. We encourage the comparison of more methodologically robust head-to-head trials against commonly used active drugs.

Ultrasound-guided transvaginal ovarian needle drilling for clomiphene-resistant polycystic ovarian syndrome in subfertile women.

BACKGROUND: Ovulatory disturbance is a key diagnostic feature of polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), leading to infertility and correspondingly heavy disease burden. Many therapeutic strategies have been used to induce ovulation for women with PCOS who are infertile. Ultrasound-guided transvaginal ovarian needle drilling (UTND) is a novel surgical method used to induce ovulation for women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS at the outpatients clinic. Nevertheless, the quality in most of the studies seemed low, and the safety and efficacy of UTND is still uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of UTND for subfertile women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases to November 2018. We checked conference abstracts from the 2018 ESHRE, reference lists, and clinical trials registries. We contacted experts and specialists in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UTND to laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD), and UTND combined with gonadotropins to gonadotropins alone for women of reproductive age with clomiphene-resistant PCOS and infertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened appropriate trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were live birth rate and incidence of surgical complications (bleeding and infection). We included ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) as a secondary outcome. Meta-analyses could only be conducted for the secondary outcomes pregnancy rate and ovulation rate in the comparison of UTND versus LOD using a random-effect model. We calculated odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by applying GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials involving 639 clomiphene-resistant women with PCOS. Three studies compared UTND with LOD, and two compared UTND combined with gonadotropins with gonadotropins alone. The evidence was of low to very low quality. The main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, inconsistency resulting from heterogeneity, imprecision induced by limited sample size, and lack of reporting of clinically relevant outcomes such as live birth and surgical complications.UTND versus LODNo studies reported on the main outcome live birth. One study reported on surgical complications; however, the evidence for this outcome was of very low quality because it was based on one study with small sample size and there were no events in either arm. Thus, we are uncertain whether there is any difference in surgical complications between UTND and LOD.We are also uncertain whether there is any difference in pregnancy rate when comparing UTND with LOD (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.03; I2 = 56%; 3 RCTs, n = 473; very-low quality evidence). UTND may lead to a slight decrease in ovulation rate when compared to LOD (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, n = 473; low-quality evidence). This suggests that among clomiphene-resistant women with PCOS using LOD with an expected ovulation rate of 69.5%, the ovulation rate among women using UTND may be between 50.6% and 68.8%No studies reported on the outcomes OHSS and multiple pregnancy. There was also insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding miscarriage as there was only one study of very low quality.UTND combined with gonadotropins versus gonadotropins aloneNo studies reported on the main outcomes live birth and incidence of surgical complications. The evidence for the outcomes OHSS, pregnancy, ovulation, miscarriage, and multiple pregnancy in this comparison was of very low quality. Thus, we are uncertain whether there is any difference in these outcomes for women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS using UTND combined with gonadotropins as compared with gonadotropins. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low-quality evidence, It is uncertain whether there is any difference in pregnancy rate, incidence of surgical complications, and miscarriage rate between UTND and LOD in women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS. UTND may lead to a slight decrease in ovulation rate when compared to LOD. No studies reported on the outcomes live birth rate, incidence of OHSS, and multiple pregnancy rate. No studies reported on the main outcomes live birth and surgical complications for the comparison UTND combined with gonadotrophins versus gonadotrophins alone. The evidence for the outcomes OHSS, pregnancy, ovulation, miscarriage, and multiple pregnancy in this comparison was of very low quality. Thus, it is unclear if there is a difference in any of the outcomes between UTND combined with gonadotrophins versus gonadotrophins alone.

Thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Thrombolytic therapy is usually reserved for patients with clinically serious or massive pulmonary embolism (PE). Evidence suggests that thrombolytic agents may dissolve blood clots more rapidly than heparin and may reduce the death rate associated with PE. However, there are still concerns about the possible risk of adverse effects of thrombolytic therapy, such as major or minor haemorrhage. This is the third update of the Cochrane review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of thrombolytic therapy for acute pulmonary embolism. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 16 April 2018. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared thrombolytic therapy followed by heparin versus heparin alone, heparin plus placebo, or surgical intervention for patients with acute PE. We did not include trials comparing two different thrombolytic agents or different doses of the same thrombolytic drug. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (JY, QH) assessed the eligibility and quality of trials and extracted data. We calculated effect estimates using the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new studies for inclusion in this 2018 update. We included in the review 18 trials with a total of 2197 participants. We were not able to include one study in the meta-analysis because it provided no data that we could extract. Most of the studies carried a high risk of bias because of high or unclear risk related to randomisation and blinding. Meta-analysis showed that, compared with heparin alone, or heparin plus placebo, thrombolytics plus heparin can reduce the odds of death (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.87, 2167 participants, P = 0.01, low-quality evidence) and recurrence of PE (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89, 1898 participants, P = 0.02, low-quality evidence). Effects on mortality weakened when we excluded from analysis four studies at high risk of bias (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.06, 2054 participants, P = 0.08). The incidence of major and minor haemorrhagic events was higher in the thrombolytics group than in the control group (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.95 to 4.31, 1897 participants, P < 0.001, low-quality evidence; OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.58 to 6.06, 1553 participants, P = 0.001, very low-quality evidence, respectively). We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low or very low because of design limitations, potential influence of pharmaceutical companies, and small sample sizes. Length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -0.89, 95% CI -3.13 to 1.34) and quality of life were similar between the two treatment groups. Limited information from a small number of trials indicated that thrombolytics may improve haemodynamic outcomes, perfusion lung scanning, pulmonary angiogram assessment, echocardiograms, pulmonary hypertension, coagulation parameters, clinical outcomes, and survival time to a greater extent than heparin alone. However, the heterogeneity of the studies and the small number of participants involved warrant caution when results are interpreted. Similarily, fewer participants from the thrombolytics group required escalation of treatment. None of the included studies reported on post-thrombotic syndrome or compared the costs of different treatments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence suggests that thrombolytics reduce death following acute pulmonary embolism compared with heparin. The included studies used a variety of thrombolytic drugs. Thrombolytic therapy may be helpful in reducing the recurrence of pulmonary emboli but may cause major and minor haemorrhagic events and stroke. More high-quality, blinded randomised controlled trials assessing safety and cost-effectiveness of therapies for pulmonary embolism are required.

Acupuncture for hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Elevated blood pressure (hypertension) affects about one billion people worldwide. It is important as it is a major risk factor for stroke and myocardial infarction. However, it remains a challenge for the medical profession as many people with hypertension have blood pressure (BP) that is not well controlled. According to Traditional Chinese Medicine theory, acupuncture has the potential to lower BP. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for lowering blood pressure in adults with primary hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register (February 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2017, Issue 2; MEDLINE (February 2017); Embase (February 2017), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (January 2015), VIP Database (January 2015), the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry Platform (February 2017)and ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2017). There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical effects of an acupuncture intervention (acupuncture used alone or add-on) with no treatment, a sham acupuncture or an antihypertensive drug in adults with primary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. They extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each trial, and telephoned or emailed the authors of the studies to ask for missing information. A third review author resolved disagreements. Outcomes included change in systolic blood pressure (SBP), change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), withdrawal due to adverse effects, and any adverse events. We calculated pooled mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes using a fixed-effect or random-effects model where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-two RCTs (1744 people) met our inclusion criteria. The RCTs were of variable methodological quality (most at high risk of bias because of lack of blinding). There was no evidence for a sustained BP lowering effect of acupuncture; only one trial investigated a sustained effect and found no BP lowering effect at three and six months after acupuncture. Four sham acupuncture controlled trials provided very low quality evidence that acupuncture had a short-term (one to 24 hours) effect on SBP (change) -3.4 mmHg (-6.0 to -0.9) and DBP -1.9 mmHg (95% CI -3.6 to -0.3). Pooled analysis of eight trials comparing acupuncture with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and seven trials comparing acupuncture to calcium antagonists suggested that acupuncture lowered short-term BP better than the antihypertensive drugs. However, because of the very high risk of bias in these trials, we think that this is most likely a reflection of bias and not a true effect. As a result, we did not report these results in the 'Summary of findings' table. Safety of acupuncture could not be assessed as only eight trials reported adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is no evidence for the sustained BP lowering effect of acupuncture that is required for the management of chronically elevated BP. The short-term effects of acupuncture are uncertain due to the very low quality of evidence. The larger effect shown in non-sham acupuncture controlled trials most likely reflects bias and is not a true effect. Future RCTs must use sham acupuncture controls and assess whether there is a BP lowering effect of acupuncture that lasts at least seven days.

Peritoneal dialysis for acute kidney injury.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal dialysis (PD) has been suggested as an effective and safe dialysis modality in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). However, whether PD is superior to extracorporeal therapy (e.g. haemodialysis) in terms of improving survival, recovery of kidney function, metabolic and clinical outcomes is still inconclusive. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to evaluate the benefits and harms of PD for patients with AKI compared with extracorporeal therapy or different PD modalities. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies to 29 May 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the China Biological Medicine Database. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included patients with AKI who were randomised to receive PD, extracorporeal therapy, or different PD modalities regardless of their age, sex, primary disease and clinical course. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening, selection, data extraction and quality assessments for each retrieved article were carried out by two authors using standardised forms. Authors contacted when published data were incomplete. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity among studies was explored using the Cochran Q statistic and the I2 test. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, recovery of kidney function, weekly delivered Kt/V, correction of acidosis, fluid removal, duration of dialysis, and infectious complications. Confidence in the evidence was assessing using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies (484 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Five studies compared high volume PD with daily haemodialysis, extended daily haemodialysis, or continuous renal replacement therapy. One study focused on the intensity of PD. The overall risk of bias was low to unclear. Compared to extracorporeal therapy, PD probably made little or no difference to all-cause mortality (4 studies, 383 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.55; I2 = 69%; moderate certainty evidence), or kidney function recovery (3 studies, 333 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). PD probably slightly reduces the amount of fluid removal compared to extracorporeal therapy (3 studies, 313 participants: MD -0.59 L/d, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.01; I2 = 89%; low certainty evidence), and probably made little or no difference to infectious complications (2 studies, 263 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.78; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether PD compared to extracorporeal therapy has any effects on weekly delivered Kt/V (2 studies, 263 participants: MD -2.47, 95% CI -5.17 to 0.22; I2 = 99%; very low certainty evidence), correction of acidosis (2 studies, 89 participants: RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 13.60; I2 = 96%; very low certainty evidence), or duration of dialysis (2 studies, 170 participants: MD -1.01 hours, 95% CI -91.49 to 89.47; I2 = 98%; very low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity was high and this may be due to the different extracorporeal therapies used.One study (61 participants) reported little or no difference to all-cause mortality, kidney function recovery, or infection between low and high and intensity PD. Weekly delivered Kt/V and fluid removal was lower with low compared to high intensity PD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate (mortality, recovery of kidney function), low (infectious complications), or very low certainty evidence (correction of acidosis) there is probably little or no difference between PD and extracorporeal therapy for treating AKI. Fluid removal (low certainty) and weekly delivered Kt/V (very low certainty) may be higher with extracorporeal therapy.

Continuous chest compression versus interrupted chest compression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation of non-asphyxial out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major cause of death worldwide. Cardiac arrest can be subdivided into asphyxial and non asphyxial etiologies. An asphyxia arrest is caused by lack of oxygen in the blood and occurs in drowning and choking victims and in other circumstances. A non asphyxial arrest is usually a loss of functioning cardiac electrical activity. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a well-established treatment for cardiac arrest. Conventional CPR includes both chest compressions and 'rescue breathing' such as mouth-to-mouth breathing. Rescue breathing is delivered between chest compressions using a fixed ratio, such as two breaths to 30 compressions or can be delivered asynchronously without interrupting chest compression. Studies show that applying continuous chest compressions is critical for survival and interrupting them for rescue breathing might increase risk of death. Continuous chest compression CPR may be performed with or without rescue breathing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of continuous chest compression CPR (with or without rescue breathing) versus conventional CPR plus rescue breathing (interrupted chest compression with pauses for breaths) of non-asphyxial OHCA. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 1 2017); MEDLINE (Ovid) (from 1985 to February 2017); Embase (1985 to February 2017); Web of Science (1985 to February 2017). We searched ongoing trials databases including controlledtrials.com and clinicaltrials.gov. We did not impose any language or publication restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized studies in adults and children suffering non-asphyxial OHCA due to any cause. Studies compared the effects of continuous chest compression CPR (with or without rescue breathing) with interrupted CPR plus rescue breathing provided by rescuers (bystanders or professional CPR providers). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted the data and summarized the effects as risk ratios (RRs), adjusted risk differences (ARDs) or mean differences (MDs). We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one cluster-RCT (with a total of 26,742 participants analysed). We identified one ongoing study. While predominantly adult patients, one study included children. Untrained bystander-administered CPRThree studies assessed CPR provided by untrained bystanders in urban areas of the USA, Sweden and the UK. Bystanders administered CPR under telephone instruction from emergency services. There was an unclear risk of selection bias in two trials and low risk of detection, attrition, and reporting bias in all three trials. Survival outcomes were unlikely to be affected by the unblinded design of the studies.We found high-quality evidence that continuous chest compression CPR without rescue breathing improved participants' survival to hospital discharge compared with interrupted chest compression with pauses for rescue breathing (ratio 15:2) by 2.4% (14% versus 11.6%; RR 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.46; 3 studies, 3031 participants).One trial reported survival to hospital admission, but the number of participants was too low to be certain about the effects of the different treatment strategies on survival to admission(RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.48; 1 study, 520 participants; moderate-quality evidence).There were no data available for survival at one year, quality of life, return of spontaneous circulation or adverse effects.There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of the different strategies on neurological outcomes at hospital discharge (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.66; 1 study, 1286 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The proportion of participants categorized as having good or moderate cerebral performance was 11% following treatment with interrupted chest compression plus rescue breathing compared with 10% to 18% for those treated with continuous chest compression CPR without rescue breathing. CPR administered by a trained professional In one trial that assessed OHCA CPR administered by emergency medical service professionals (EMS) 23,711 participants received either continuous chest compression CPR (100/minute) with asynchronous rescue breathing (10/minute) or interrupted chest compression with pauses for rescue breathing (ratio 30:2). The study was at low risk of bias overall.After OHCA, risk of survival to hospital discharge is probably slightly lower for continuous chest compression CPR with asynchronous rescue breathing compared with interrupted chest compression plus rescue breathing (9.0% versus 9.7%) with an adjusted risk difference (ARD) of -0.7%; 95% CI (-1.5% to 0.1%); moderate-quality evidence.There is high-quality evidence that survival to hospital admission is 1.3% lower with continuous chest compression CPR with asynchronous rescue breathing compared with interrupted chest compression plus rescue breathing (24.6% versus 25.9%; ARD -1.3% 95% CI (-2.4% to -0.2%)).Survival at one year and quality of life were not reported.Return of spontaneous circulation is likely to be slightly lower in people treated with continuous chest compression CPR plus asynchronous rescue breathing (24.2% versus 25.3%; -1.1% (95% CI -2.4 to 0.1)), high-quality evidence.There is high-quality evidence of little or no difference in neurological outcome at discharge between these two interventions (7.0% versus 7.7%; ARD -0.6% (95% CI -1.4 to 0.1).Rates of adverse events were 54.4% in those treated with continuous chest compressions plus asynchronous rescue breathing versus 55.4% in people treated with interrupted chest compression plus rescue breathing compared with the ARD being -1% (-2.3 to 0.4), moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Following OHCA, we have found that bystander-administered chest compression-only CPR, supported by telephone instruction, increases the proportion of people who survive to hospital discharge compared with conventional interrupted chest compression CPR plus rescue breathing. Some uncertainty remains about how well neurological function is preserved in this population and there is no information available regarding adverse effects.When CPR was performed by EMS providers, continuous chest compressions plus asynchronous rescue breathing did not result in higher rates for survival to hospital discharge compared to interrupted chest compression plus rescue breathing. The results indicate slightly lower rates of survival to admission or discharge, favourable neurological outcome and return of spontaneous circulation observed following continuous chest compression. Adverse effects are probably slightly lower with continuous chest compression.Increased availability of automated external defibrillators (AEDs), and AED use in CPR need to be examined, and also whether continuous chest compression CPR is appropriate for paediatric cardiac arrest.

Invasive versus non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure in neuromuscular disease and chest wall disorders.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure is a common life-threatening complication of acute onset neuromuscular diseases, and may exacerbate chronic hypoventilation in patients with neuromuscular disease or chest wall disorders. Standard management includes oxygen supplementation, physiotherapy, cough assistance, and, whenever needed, antibiotics and intermittent positive pressure ventilation. Non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) via nasal, buccal or full-face devices has become routine practice in many centres. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to compare the efficacy of non-invasive ventilation with invasive ventilation in improving short-term survival in acute respiratory failure in people with neuromuscular disease and chest wall disorders. The secondary objectives were to compare the effects of NIV with those of invasive mechanical ventilation on improvement in arterial blood gas after 24 hours and lung function measurements after one month, incidence of barotrauma and ventilator-associated pneumonia, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit and length of hospital stay. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 11 September 2017: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched conference proceedings and clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised or quasi-randomised trials with or without blinding. We planned to include trials performed in children or adults with acute onset neuromuscular diseases or chronic neuromuscular disease or chest wall disorders presenting with acute respiratory failure that compared the benefits and risks of invasive ventilation versus NIV. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors reviewed searches and independently selected studies for assessment. We planned to follow standard Cochrane methodology for data collection and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any trials eligible for inclusion in the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Acute respiratory failure is a life-threatening complication of acute onset neuromuscular disease and of chronic neuromuscular disease and chest wall disorders. We found no randomised trials on which to elaborate evidence-based practice for the use of non-invasive versus invasive mechanical ventilation. For researchers, there is a need to design and conduct new randomised trials to compare NIV with invasive ventilation in acute neuromuscular respiratory failure. These trials should anticipate variations in treatment responses according to disease condition (acute onset versus acute exacerbation on chronic neuromuscular diseases) and according to the presence or absence of bulbar dysfunction.

Fasting for haemostasis in children with gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal bleeding refers to loss of blood from any site of the digestive tract. In paediatric clinical practice, it is usually a complaint of children attending the emergency department as a symptom of diseases such as ulcers, gastric or oesophageal varices, gastritis, Mallory-Weiss tears, anorectal fissures, allergic colitis, infectious colitis, intussusception, Henoch-Schonlein purpura, and Meckel's diverticulum; it also occurs with high incidence in critically ill children hospitalised in intensive care units and is caused by stress-induced gastropathy. No matter what the cause of gastrointestinal bleeding, fasting is believed to be necessary due to the fear that eating may affect haemostasis or aggravate bleeding. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects and safety of fasting for haemostasis in gastrointestinal bleeding in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched EBM Reviews - the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (May 2016), Ovid MEDLINE(R) (1946 to 3 May 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 2016 Week 18), Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) (1978 to 3 May 2016), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1979 to 3 May 2016), VIP Database (1989 to 4 May 2016) and Wanfang Data (1990 to 4 May 2016). We used no restrictions on language or study setting and limited searches in CNKI and Wanfang Data to the medical field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in children with gastrointestinal bleeding that compared fasting with feeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the literature search results, and there were no disagreements. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no RCTs or quasi-RCTs that compared the effects and safety of fasting with feeding for haemostasis in children with gastrointestinal bleeding. No study fulfilled the criteria for considering studies for our review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no information available from RCTs or quasi-RCTs to support or refute the use of fasting for haemostasis in children with gastrointestinal bleeding.

Perioperative angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers for preventing mortality and morbidity in adults.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative hypertension requires careful management. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) have shown efficacy in treating hypertension associated with surgery. However, there is lack of consensus about whether they can prevent mortality and morbidity. OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the benefits and harms of administration of ACEIs or ARBs perioperatively for the prevention of mortality and morbidity in adults (aged 18 years and above) undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the current issue of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 8 December 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 8 December 2014), and references of the retrieved randomized trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perioperative administration of ACEIs or ARBs with placebo in adults (aged 18 years and above) undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. We excluded studies in which participants underwent procedures that required local anaesthesia only, or participants who had already been on ACEIs or ARBs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs with a total of 571 participants in the review. Two of the seven trials involved 36 participants undergoing non-cardiac vascular surgery (infrarenal aortic surgery), and five involved 535 participants undergoing cardiac surgery, including valvular surgery, coronary artery bypass surgery, and cardiopulmonary bypass surgery. The intervention was started from 11 days to 25 minutes before surgery in six trials and during surgery in one trial. We considered all seven RCTs to carry a high risk of bias. The effects of ACEIs or ARBs on perioperative mortality and acute myocardial infarction were uncertain because the quality of the evidence was very low. The risk of death was 2.7% in the ACEIs or ARBs group and 1.6% in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 1.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 5.85). The risk of acute myocardial infarction was 1.7% in the ACEIs or ARBs group and 3.0% in the placebo group (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.14 to 2.26). ACEIs or ARBs may improve congestive heart failure (cardiac index) perioperatively (mean difference (MD) -0.60; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.50, very low-quality evidence). In terms of rate of complications, there was no difference in perioperative cerebrovascular complications (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.28, very low-quality evidence) and hypotension (RR 1.95; 95% CI 0.86 to 4.41, very low-quality evidence). Cardiac surgery-related renal failure was not reported. ACEIs or ARBs were associated with shortened length of hospital stay (MD -0.54; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.16, P value = 0.005, very low-quality evidence). These findings should be interpreted cautiously due to likely confounding by the clinical backgrounds of the participants. ACEIs or ARBs may shorten the length of hospital stay, (MD -0.54; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.16, very low-quality evidence) Two studies reported adverse events, and there was no evidence of a difference between the ACEIs or ARBs and control groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this review did not find evidence to support that perioperative ACEIs or ARBs can prevent mortality, morbidity, and complications (hypotension, perioperative cerebrovascular complications, and cardiac surgery-related renal failure). We found no evidence showing that the use of these drugs may reduce the rate of acute myocardial infarction. However, ACEIs or ARBs may increase cardiac output perioperatively. Due to the low and very low methodology quality, high risk of bias, and lack of power of the included studies, the true effect may be substantially different from the observed estimates. Perioperative (mainly elective cardiac surgery, according to included studies) initiation of ACEIs or ARBs therapy should be individualized.

Single dose intra-articular morphine for pain control after knee arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Knee arthroscopy is a common procedure and is associated with postoperative pain. Intra-articular (IA) injection of morphine for pain control has been widely studied, but its analgesic effect after knee arthroscopy is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relative effects on pain relief and adverse events of IA morphine given for pain control after knee arthroscopy compared with placebo, other analgesics (local anaesthetics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), other opioids) and other routes of morphine administration. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2015), MEDLINE via Ovid (January 1966 to May 2015), EMBASE via Ovid (January 1988 to May 2015), and the reference lists of included articles. We also searched the metaRegister of controlled trials, clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We identified all the randomised, double-blind controlled trials that compared single dose IA morphine with other interventions for the treatment of postoperative pain after knee arthroscopy. We excluded studies with fewer than 10 participants in each group, using spinal or epidural anaesthesia, or assessing the analgesic effect of IA morphine on chronic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the quality of each trial and extracted information on pain intensity, supplementary analgesics consumption and adverse events. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 28 small, low quality studies (29 reports) involving 2564 participants. Of 20 studies (21 reports) comparing morphine with placebo, nine studies with adequate data were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the risk of bias was unclear. Overall, the quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was low to very low, downgraded primarily due to risk of bias, small study size, and imprecision.No statistical difference was found between 1 mg IA morphine and placebo in pain intensity (visual analogue scale (VAS)) at early phase (zero to two hours) (mean difference (MD) -0.50, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.14; participants = 297; studies = 7; low quality evidence), medium phase (two to six hours) (MD -0.47, 95% CI -1.09 to 0.14; participants = 297; studies = 7; low quality evidence) and late phase (six to 30 hours) (MD -0.88, 95% CI -1.81 to 0.04; participants = 297; studies = 7; low quality evidence). No significant difference was found between 1 mg and 2 mg morphine for pain intensity at early phase (MD -0.56, 95% CI -1.93 to 0.81; participants = 105; studies = 2; low quality evidence), while 4 mg/5 mg morphine provided better analgesia than 1 mg morphine at late phase (MD 0.67, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.25; participants = 97; studies = 3; low quality evidence). IA morphine was not better than local anaesthetic agents at early phase (MD 1.43, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.37; participants = 248; studies = 5; low quality evidence), NSAIDs at early phase (MD 0.95, 95% CI -0.95 to 2.85; participants = 80; studies = 2; very low quality evidence), sufentanil, fentanyl or pethidine for pain intensity. IA morphine was similar to intramuscular (IM) morphine for pain intensity at early phase (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.90; participants = 72; studies = 2; very low quality evidence).Meta-analysis indicated that there was no difference between IA morphine and placebo or bupivacaine in time to first analgesic request. Eleven out of 20 studies comparing morphine with placebo reported adverse events and no statistical difference was obtained regarding the incidence of adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.36; participants = 314; studies = 8; low quality evidence). Seven of 28 studies reported participants' withdrawal. There were not enough data for withdrawals to be able to perform meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have not found high quality evidence that 1 mg IA morphine is better than placebo at reducing pain intensity at early, medium or late phases. No statistical difference was reported between IA morphine and placebo regarding the incidence of adverse events. The relative effects of 1 mg morphine when compared with IA bupivacaine, NSAIDs, sufentanil, fentanyl and pethidine are uncertain. The quality of the evidence is limited by high risk of bias and small size of the included studies, which might bias the results. More high quality studies are needed to get more conclusive results.

Linezolid versus vancomycin for skin and soft tissue infections.

BACKGROUND: The morbidity and treatment costs associated with skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are high. Linezolid and vancomycin are antibiotics that are commonly used in treating skin and soft-tissue infections, specifically those infections due to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects and safety of linezolid and vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs. SEARCH METHODS: For this first update of this review we conducted searches of the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 24 March 2015; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL. We also contacted manufacturers for details of unpublished and ongoing trials. We scrutinised citations within all obtained trials and major review articles to identify any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing linezolid with vancomycin in the treatment of SSTIs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological cure, and SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. We performed subgroup analyses according to age, and whether the infection was due to MRSA. MAIN RESULTS: No new trials were identified for this first update. We included nine RCTs (3144 participants). Linezolid was associated with a significantly better clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16) and microbiological cure rate in adults (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). For those infections due to MRSA, linezolid was significantly more effective than vancomycin in clinical (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.17) and microbiological cure rates (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32). No RCT reported SSTI-related and treatment-related mortality. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between linezolid and vancomycin (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.80). There were fewer incidents of red man syndrome (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.29), pruritus (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75) and rash (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58) in the linezolid group compared with vancomycin, however, more people reported thrombocytopenia (RR 13.06, 95% CI 1.72 to 99.22), and nausea (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.94) when treated with linezolid. It seems, from the available data, that length of stay in hospital was shorter for those in the linezolid group than the vancomycin group. The daily cost of outpatient therapy was less with oral linezolid than with intravenous vancomycin. Although inpatient treatment with linezolid cost more than inpatient treatment with vancomycin per day, the median length of hospital stay was three days shorter with linezolid. Thus, total hospital charges per patient were less with linezolid treatment than with vancomycin treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid seems to be more effective than vancomycin for treating people with SSTIs, including SSTIs caused by MRSA. The available evidence is at high risk of bias and is based on studies that were supported by the pharmaceutical company that makes linezolid. Further well-designed, independently-funded, RCTs are needed to confirm the available evidence.

Acupuncture for stroke rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is the second most common cause of death in the world and in China it has now become the main cause of death. It is also a main cause of adult disability and dependency. Acupuncture for stroke has been used in China for hundreds of years and is increasingly practiced in some Western countries. This is an update of the Cochrane review originally published in 2006 . OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of acupuncture therapy in people with subacute and chronic stroke. We intended to test the following hypotheses: 1) acupuncture can reduce the risk of death or dependency in people with subacute and chronic stroke at the end of treatment and at follow-up; 2) acupuncture can improve neurological deficit and quality of life after treatment and at the end of follow-up; 3) acupuncture can reduce the number of people requiring institutional care; and 4) acupuncture is not associated with any intolerable adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (June 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2015, Ovid), EMBASE (1980 to July 2015, Ovid), CINAHL (1982 to July 2015, EBSCO), and AMED (1985 to July 2015, Ovid). We also searched the following four Chinese medical databases: China Biological Medicine Database (July 2015); Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database (July 2015); China National Infrastructure (July 2015), and Wan Fang database (July 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Truly randomised unconfounded clinical trials among people with ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, in the subacute or chronic stage, comparing acupuncture involving needling with placebo acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or no acupuncture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed quality, extracted and cross-checked the data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 trials with a total of 2257 participants in the subacute or chronic stages of stroke. The methodological quality of most of the included trials was not high. The quality of evidence for the main outcomes was low or very low based on the assessment by the system of Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).Two trials compared real acupuncture plus baseline treatment with sham acupuncture plus baseline treatment. There was no evidence of differences in the changes of motor function and quality of life between real acupuncture and sham acupuncture for people with stroke in the convalescent stage.Twenty-nine trials compared acupuncture plus baseline treatment versus baseline treatment alone. Compared with no acupuncture, for people with stroke in the convalescent phase, acupuncture had beneficial effects on the improvement of dependency (activity of daily living) measured by Barthel Index (nine trials, 616 participants; mean difference (MD) 9.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.34 to 14.05; GRADE very low), global neurological deficiency (seven trials, 543 participants; odds ratio (OR) 3.89, 95% CI 1.78 to 8.49; GRADE low), and specific neurological impairments including motor function measured by Fugl-Meyer Assessment (four trials, 245 participants; MD 6.16, 95% CI 4.20 to 8.11; GRADE low), cognitive function measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (five trials, 278 participants; MD 2.54, 95% CI 0.03 to 5.05; GRADE very low), depression measured by the Hamilton Depression Scale (six trials, 552 participants; MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.28 to -1.87; GRADE very low), swallowing function measured by drinking test (two trials, 200 participants; MD -1.11, 95% CI -2.08 to -0.14; GRADE very low), and pain measured by the Visual Analogue Scale (two trials, 118 participants; MD -2.88, 95% CI -3.68 to -2.09; GRADE low). Sickness caused by acupuncture and intolerance of pain at acupoints were reported in a few participants with stroke in the acupuncture groups. No data on death, the proportion of people requiring institutional care or requiring extensive family support, and all-cause mortality were available in all included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the available evidence, acupuncture may have beneficial effects on improving dependency, global neurological deficiency, and some specific neurological impairments for people with stroke in the convalescent stage, with no obvious serious adverse events. However, most included trials were of inadequate quality and size. There is, therefore, inadequate evidence to draw any conclusions about its routine use. Rigorously designed, randomised, multi-centre, large sample trials of acupuncture for stroke are needed to further assess its effects.

Thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Thrombolytic therapy (powerful anticoagulation drugs) is usually reserved for patients with clinically serious or massive pulmonary embolism (PE). Evidence suggests that thrombolytic agents may dissolve blood clots more rapidly than heparin and reduce the death rate associated with PE. However, there are still concerns about the possible risk of adverse effects of thrombolytic therapy, such as major or minor haemorrhages. This is the second update of the Cochrane review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched September 2014) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (last searched Issue 8, 2014). We also searched individual trial collections and private databases, along with bibliographies of relevant articles. We handsearched relevant medical journals. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared thrombolytic therapy followed by heparin versus heparin alone, heparin plus placebo or surgical intervention in patients with acute PE. We did not include trials comparing two different thrombolytic agents or different doses of the same thrombolytic drug. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (BD and QH) assessed the eligibility and quality of trials and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 trials with a total of 2197 participants for inclusion in the review. We were not able to include one study in the meta-analysis because it had no data to extract. Most of the studies carried a high risk of bias because of high or unclear risk relating to randomisation and blinding. Meta-analysis showed that, compared with heparin alone, or heparin plus placebo, thrombolytics plus heparin can reduce the odds of death (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.87, P = 0.02, low quality evidence) and recurrence of PE (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89, P = 0.02, low quality evidence). The effects of death weakened when we excluded four studies at high risk of bias from analysis: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.06, P = 0.08. The incidence of major and minor haemorrhagic events was higher in the thrombolytics group than in the control group, and this difference was statistically significant (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.95 to 4.31, P < 0.001, low quality evidence; OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.58 to 6.06, P = 0.001, very low quality evidence, respectively). Length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -1.35, 95% CI -4.27 to 1.58) and quality of life were similar between the two treatment groups. Stroke was reported in one study and occurred more often in the thrombolytics group than in the control group, although the confidence interval was wide (OR 12.10, 95% CI 1.57 to 93.39). Limited information from a small number of trials indicated that thrombolytics may improve haemodynamic outcomes, perfusion lung scanning, pulmonary angiogram assessment, echocardiograms, pulmonary hypertension, coagulation parameters, clinical outcomes and survival time to a greater extent than heparin alone. However, the heterogeneity of the studies and small number of participants involved warrant caution when interpreting results. Similarily, fewer patients from the thrombolytics group required escalation of treatment. None of the included studies reported on post-thrombotic syndrome or compared the cost of the different treatments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence that thrombolytics reduce death following acute pulmonary embolism compared with heparin. Furthermore, thrombolytic therapies included in the review were heterogeneous. Thrombolytic therapy may be helpful in reducing the recurrence of pulmonary emboli but may cause more major and minor haemorrhagic events and stroke. More high quality double blind RCTs assessing safety and cost-effectiveness are required.

Chinese medicinal herbs for mumps.

BACKGROUND: Mumps is an infectious disease caused by the mumps virus. Chinese physicians generally believe that Chinese medicinal herbs are effective in alleviating symptoms and reducing the duration of mumps. Herbalists tend to develop a treatment plan according to the individual's symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Chinese medicinal herbs combined with routine treatments for mumps. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1948 to January week 4, 2015), EMBASE (1974 to February 2015), CINAHL (1981 to February 2015), AMED (1985 to April 2014), the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) (1980 to February 2015), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1979 to February 2015), VIP Information (1989 to February 2015), and relevant databases of ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of Chinese medicinal herbs for mumps (with or without complications). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated trial quality and conducted data extraction. We contacted the trial authors for missing data regarding participant allocation. Some trials allocated participants according to the participants' admission sequence, making it a pseudo-random allocation. None of the trials concealed participants' allocation or used blinding. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any eligible trials for inclusion. We identified 108 studies that claimed to use random allocation. We excluded 104 studies because the allocation methods the authors had used were not actually randomised. We were unable to contact the trial authors of the remaining four studies. These trials require further evaluation and have been allocated to the 'Studies awaiting classification' section. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any RCTs for or against Chinese herbal medicine used in the treatment of mumps. We hope more high-quality RCTs will be conducted in the future.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) plus delayed defibrillation versus immediate defibrillation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) is a common health problem associated with high levels of mortality. Cardiac arrest is caused by three groups of dysrhythmias: ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT), pulseless electric activity (PEA) and asystole. The most common dysrhythmia found in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is VF. During VF or VT, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) provides perfusion and oxygenation to the tissues, whilst defibrillation restores a viable cardiac rhythm. Early successful defibrillation is known to improve outcomes in VF/VT. However, it has been hypothesized that a period of CPR before defibrillation creates a more conducive physiological environment, increasing the likelihood of successful defibrillation. The order of priority of CPR versus defibrillation therefore remains in contention. As previous studies have remained inconclusive, we conducted a systematic review of available evidence in an attempt to draw conclusions on whether CPR plus delayed defibrillation or immediate defibrillation resulted in better outcomes in OHCA. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether an initial one and one-half to three minutes of CPR administered by paramedics before defibrillation versus immediate defibrillation on arrival influenced survival rates, neurological outcomes or rates of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in OHCA. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 6); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1948 to May 2013); EMBASE (1980 to May 2013); the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1980 to May 2013) and the China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database (China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), 1980 to May 2013). We included studies published in all languages. We also searched the Current Controlled Trials and Clinical Trials databases for ongoing trials. We screened the references lists of studies included in our review against the reference lists of relevant International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) evidence worksheets. SELECTION CRITERIA: Our participant group consisted of adults over 18 years of age presenting with OHCA who were in VF or pulseless VT at the time of emergency medical service (EMS) paramedic arrival. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of one and one-half to three minutes of CPR versus defibrillation as initial therapy on survival and neurological outcomes of these participants. We excluded observational and cross-over design studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted the data. We contacted study authors to ask for additional data when required. The risk ratio (RR) for each outcome was calculated and summarized in the meta-analysis after heterogeneity was considered. We used Review Manager software for all analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with a total of 3090 enrolled participants (one study used a cluster-randomized design). Three trials were considered to have a relatively low risk of bias, and one trial was considered to have a relatively high risk. When survival to hospital discharge was compared, 38 of 320 (11.88%) participants survived to discharge in the initial CPR plus delayed defibrillation group compared with 39 of 338 participants (11.54%) in the immediate defibrillation group (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.20, Chi(2) = 10.78, degrees of freedom (df) = 5, P value 0.06, I(2) = 54%, low-quality evidence).When we compared the neurological outcome at hospital discharge (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.93, low-quality evidence), the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.15,low-quality evidence) and survival at one year (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.49, low-quality evidence), we could not rule out the superiority of either treatment.Adverse effects were not associated with either treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the low quality of available evidence, we have been unable to determine conclusively whether immediate defibrillation and one and one-half to three minutes of CPR as initial therapy before defibrillation have similar effects on rates of return of spontaneous circulation, survival to discharge or neurological insult.We have also been unable to conclude whether either treatment approach provides a degree of superiority in OHCA.We propose that this is an area that needs further rigorous research through additional high-quality RCTs, including larger sample sizes and proper subgroup analysis.

Oral adsorbents for preventing or delaying the progression of chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a worldwide public health problem which is at high increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and renal failure. Deterioration of kidney function causes an increase in circulating toxins, which, in turn promotes the progression of CKD. Oral adsorbents with capacity to adsorb and remove substances including uraemic toxins from the intestine could be effective in minimising kidney injury. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the benefits and harms of oral adsorbents for preventing or delaying the progression of CKD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register (to 22 September 2014) through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. The following four Chinese medical databases were also searched: China Biological Medicine Database (1979 to May 2012); Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database (to May 2012); China National Infrastructure (to May 2012); Wan Fang database (to May 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing any oral adsorbents for preventing or delaying the progression of CKD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed and extracted information. Information was collected on methods, participants, interventions and outcomes (incidence of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), mortality, quality of life and adverse events). Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or as mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Adverse events were expressed as risk differences (RD). MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen studies (1590 patients) conducted in Japan, China, and the USA were identified. The risk of bias of the included studies was moderate or high and the sample sizes were small.Three studies compared oral AST-120 plus routine treatment with placebo plus routine treatment; however data on our outcome measures of interest were not reported in two studies. These studies did not assess or did not provide data for our primary outcomes of interest (incidence of ESKD; time to ESKD; all-cause mortality). There was no significant difference in the changes of serum creatinine (SCr), slope of 1/SCr over time and creatinine clearance (CrCl) between AST-120 and placebo for patients with CKD.Eight studies compared oral AST-120 plus routine treatment with routine treatment alone; data on our outcome measures of interest were not reported in one study. There was no significant difference in incidence of ESKD, all-cause mortality and the change in health-related quality of life between AST-120 and routine treatment for patients with CKD. AST-120 showed beneficial effects on delaying the decline of kidney function measured by using the slope of change in estimated CrCl (SMD 0.39, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.5) and the mean changes of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (MD -0.76 mL/min/mo, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.70) for patients with CKD; AST-120 was not superior to routine treatment in retarding the decline of kidney function measured by using the 1/SCr slope over time, occurrence of increase in SCr concentration, doubling of SCr concentration, changes in GFR from baseline (mL/min/1.73 m²) and slope of the eGFR curve (mL/min/mo) for patients with CKD.Three studies compared oral Ai Xi Te plus routine treatment with routine treatment alone. These studies did not assess our primary outcomes of interest. Compared with routine treatment, Ai Xi Te had positive effects on reducing SCr (MD -113.40 (µmol/L), 95% CI -188.69 to -38.10) and retarding the decline of CrCl (MD 9.74 (mL/min), 95% CI 4.28 to 15.21) for patients with CKD.One study compared oral Niaoduqing granules plus routine treatment with routine treatment alone, but did not assess our primary outcomes of interest. Compared with routine treatment, Niaoduqing granules had positive effects on reducing SCr (MD -135.60 (µmol/L), 95% CI -198.03 to -73.17) and CrCl (MD 13.30 (mL/min), 95% CI 5.69 to 20.91).The most commonly reported adverse events associated with AST-120 and Ai Xi Te were gastrointestinal symptoms however no serious adverse events were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Few studies reported our primary outcomes of interest. For our secondary outcomes, there is evidence of limited quality that AST-120, Ai Xi Te and Niaoduqing granules may have positive effects on delaying the decline of kidney function. There were no serious adverse events for any of the interventions in patients with CKD. Given the lack of information for our primary outcomes, the low methodological quality of most studies, and the small sample sizes, there is no strong evidence on the effectiveness of these oral adsorbents.

Acupuncture for functional dyspepsia.

BACKGROUND: Functional dyspepsia (FD) has been a worldwide complaint. More effective therapies are needed with fewer adverse effects than are seen with conventional medications. Acupuncture, as a traditional therapeutic method, has been widely used for functional gastrointestinal disorders in the East. Manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture have been recognized treatments for FD, but to date, no robust evidence has been found for the effectiveness and safety of these interventions in the treatment of this condition. OBJECTIVES: This review was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture in the treatment of FD. SEARCH METHODS: Trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified through electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Chinese Biology Medicine Disc (CBMdisc), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Wanfang Database, the VIP Database, and six trial registries. Handsearching was done to screen the reference sections of potential trials and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if investigators reported efficacy and safety of manual acupuncture or electroacupuncture for patients with FD diagnosed by Rome II or Rome III criteria, compared with medications, blank control, or sham acupuncture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by independent review authors. Study limitations were assessed by using the tool of The Cochrane Collabration for assessing risk of bias. For dichotomous data, risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) would be applied, and for continuous data, mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs. A fixed-effect model was applied in the meta-analysis, or a descriptive analysis was performed. The quality of evidence for the outcome measure was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the review, involving 542 participants with FD (212 males and 330 females). These studies generally had an unclear risk of bias based on inadequate descriptions of allocation concealment and a high risk of bias based on lack of blinding. None of the studies reported on outcomes of the Functional Digestive Disorder Quality of Life questionnaire (FDDQL), the Satisfaction With Dyspepsia Related Health scale (SODA), the Digestive Health Status Instrument (DHSI), or effective/inefficient rate and symptom recurrence six months from completion of acupuncture treatment.Four RCTs of acupuncture versus medications (cisapride, domperidone, and itopride) were included in the review. No statistically significant difference was noted in the reduction in FD symptom scores and the frequency of FD attack by manual acupuncture, manual-electroacupuncture, or electroacupuncture compared with medications. In three trials of acupuncture versus sham acupuncture, all descriptive or quantitative analysis results implied that acupuncture could improve FD symptom scores and scores on the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), and the Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) more or as significantly as sham acupuncture. With regard to adverse effects, acupuncture was superior to cisapride treatment (one study; all minor events), but no statistically significant difference was reported between acupuncture and sham acupuncture. No adverse effects data were reported in studies examining manual acupuncture versus domperidone, manual-electroacupuncture versus domperidone, or electroacupuncture versus itopride.Nevertheless, all evidence was of low or very low quality. The body of evidence identified cannot yet permit a robust conclusion regarding the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for FD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It remains unknown whether manual acupuncture or electroacupuncture is more effective or safer than other treatments for patients with FD.

Narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy versus broad-band ultraviolet B or psoralen-ultraviolet A photochemotherapy for psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: The most commonly used types of phototherapy for treating psoriasis are narrow-band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB); broad-band ultraviolet B (BB-UVB), which includes selective (delivering radiation with a wavelength range of 305 to 325 nm) and conventional BB-UVB (280 to 320 nm); and psoralen ultraviolet A photochemotherapy (oral or bath PUVA). There is substantial controversy regarding their efficacy when compared with each other. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of narrow-band ultraviolet B phototherapy versus broad-band ultraviolet B or psoralen ultraviolet A photochemotherapy for psoriasis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to August 2013: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE (from 1946), and EMBASE (from 1974). We searched the following databases up to November 2012: CNKI (from 1974) and CBM (from 1978). We also searched trials registers and the OpenGrey database. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared NB-UVB phototherapy with BB-UVB or PUVA for treating psoriasis, which included chronic plaque psoriasis (CPP), guttate psoriasis (GP), and palmoplantar psoriasis (PPP). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted the study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and data extraction. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs, with a total of 662 participants. We report the results of intention-to-treat analyses (ITT) here. Our primary outcomes of interest were as follows: Participant-rated global improvement, Percentage of participants reaching Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 (which meant equal to or more than 75% reduction in PASI score), Withdrawal due to side-effects, and Clearance rate.In one RCT of NB-UVB compared with oral PUVA in participants with CPP, the difference in PASI 75 was not statistically significant (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 1.32; N = 51; low quality). In three other RCTs of CPP, the clearance rates were inconsistent because in one, there was no difference between the groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.12; N = 54), and in the other two, the clearance rates were statistically significantly in favour of oral PUVA: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.93; N = 93 and RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96; N = 100, respectively. Pooled data from these three studies indicated that withdrawals due to adverse events were not significantly different between either group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.54; N = 247; low quality).The evidence from the comparison of NB-UVB with bath PUVA in terms of clearance rate for CPP was also inconsistent: Pooled data from two left-right body comparison RCTs found no significant difference between the NB-UVB and bath PUVA groups (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.46 to 6.91; N = 92; low quality), while a parallel RCT favoured bath PUVA (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.71; N = 36; low quality).In participants with PPP, one RCT found there were no significant differences between NB-UVB treated sides and topical PUVA treated sides in terms of clearance rate (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.56; N = 50; low quality).Two RCTs found NB-UVB plus retinoid (re-NB-UVB) and PUVA plus retinoid (re-PUVA) had similar effects for treating people with CPP or GP in terms of clearance rate (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.10; N = 90; low quality).One RCT in people with CPP found no significant differences between NB-UVB and selective BB-UVB in terms of clearance rate (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.13; N = 100; low quality) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 27.87; N = 100; low quality).No studies reported our primary outcomes for NB-UVB compared with conventional BB-UVB. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is very heterogeneous and needs to be interpreted with caution. The clearance rate between oral PUVA and NB-UVB is inconsistent among the included studies. Evidence regarding NB-UVB versus bath PUVA is also inconsistent. Re-NB-UVB and re-PUVA are similarly effective for treating people with CPP or GP. In practice, NB-UVB may be more convenient to use since exogenous photosensitiser is not required before phototherapy.NB-UVB is considered ineffective for PPP in clinical practice, and a small RCT did not detect a statistically significant difference between NB-UVB and topical PUVA for clearing PPP. NB-UVB seemed to be similar to selective BB-UVB for clearing CPP.Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm the long-term safety of NB-UVB.