Hand hygiene for the prevention of infections in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Hand hygiene is an inexpensive and cost-effective method of preventing infection in neonates, making it an affordable and practicable intervention in low- and middle-income country settings. Therefore, hand hygiene practices may hold strong prospects for reducing the occurrence of infection and infection-related neonatal death. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of different hand hygiene agents for preventing neonatal infection in both community and health facility settings. SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted without date or language limits in December 2022 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) trial registries. The reference lists of retrieved studies or related systematic reviews were screened for studies not identified by the searches.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over trials, and cluster trials that included pregnant women, mothers, other caregivers, and healthcare workers who received interventions within either the community setting or in health facility settings, and the neonates  in the neonatal care units or community settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were incidence of suspected infection (author-defined in study) within the first 28 days of life, bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life, all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life (early neonatal death), and all-cause mortality from the 8th to the 28th day of life (late neonatal death). MAIN RESULTS: Our review included six studies: two RCTs, one cluster-RCT, and three cross-over trials. Three studies involved 3281 neonates; the remaining three did not specify the actual number of neonates included in their study. Three studies involved 279 nurses working in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). The number of nurses included was not specified by one study. A cluster-RCT included 103 pregnant women of over 34 weeks gestation from 10 villages in a community setting (sources of data: 103 mother-neonate pairs) and another community-based study included 258 married pregnant women at 32 to 34 weeks of gestation (the trial reported adverse events on 258 mothers and 246 neonates). Studies examined the effectiveness of different hand hygiene practices for the incidence of suspected infection (author-defined in study) within the first 28 days of life. Three studies were rated as having low risk for allocation bias,  two studies were rated as unclear risk, and one was rated as having high risk. One study was rated as having a low risk of bias for allocation concealment,  one study was rated as unclear risk, and four werw rated as having high risk. Two studies were rated as having low risk for performance bias and two were rated as having low risk for attrition bias.  One class of agent versus another class of agent: 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) For this comparison, no study assessed the effect of the intervention on the incidence of suspected infection within the first 28 days of life. Two percent chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) probably reduces the risk of all infection in neonates compared to 61% alcohol hand sanitiser in regard to the incidence of all bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life (RR 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.93; 2932 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB): 385. The adverse outcome was reported as mean self-reported skin change and mean observer-reported skin change. There may be little to no difference between the effects of 2% CHG on nurses' skin compared to alcohol hand sanitiser, based on very low-certainty evidence for mean self-reported skin change (mean difference (MD) -0.80, 95% CI -1.59 to 0.01; 119 participants, 1 study) and on mean observer reported skin change (MD -0.19, CI -0.35 to -0.03; 119 participants, 1 study), respectively. We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality and other outcomes for this comparison. None of the included studies assessed all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life nor the duration of hospital stay. One class of agent versus two or more other classes of agent: CHG compared to plain liquid soap + hand sanitiser We identified no studies that reported on our primary and secondary outcomes for this comparison except for author-defined adverse events. We are very uncertain whether plain soap plus hand sanitiser is better than CHG for nurses' skin based on very low-certainty evidence (MD -1.87, 95% CI -3.74 to -0.00; 16 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence).  One agent versus standard care: alcohol-based handrub (hand sanitiser) versus usual care The evidence is very uncertain whether alcohol-based handrub is better than 'usual care' in the prevention of suspected infections, as reported by mothers (RR 0.98, CI 0.69 to 1.39; 103 participants, 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether alcohol-based hand sanitiser is better than 'usual care' in reducing the occurrence of early and late neonatal mortality (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.00; 103 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) and (RR 0.29, CI 0.01 to 7.00; 103 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), respectively. We identified no studies that reported on other outcomes for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found a paucity of data that would allow us to reach meaningful conclusions pertaining to the superiority of one form of antiseptic hand hygiene agent over another for the prevention of neonatal infection. Also, the sparse available data were of moderate- to very low-certainty. We are uncertain as to the superiority of one hand hygiene agent over another because this review included very few studies with very serious study limitations.

Interventions for improving coverage of childhood immunisation in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Immunisation plays a major role in reducing childhood morbidity and mortality. Getting children immunised against potentially fatal and debilitating vaccine-preventable diseases remains a challenge despite the availability of efficacious vaccines, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. With the introduction of new vaccines, this becomes increasingly difficult. There is therefore a current need to synthesise the available evidence on the strategies used to bridge this gap. This is a second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2011 and updated in 2016, and it focuses on interventions for improving childhood immunisation coverage in low- and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of intervention strategies to boost demand and supply of childhood vaccines, and sustain high childhood immunisation coverage in low- and middle-income countries. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Global Index Medicus (11 July 2022). We searched Embase, LILACS, and Sociological Abstracts (2 September 2014). We searched WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (11 July 2022). In addition, we screened reference lists of relevant systematic reviews for potentially eligible studies, and carried out a citation search for 14 of the included studies (19 February 2020). SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised RCTs (nRCTs), controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series conducted in low- and middle-income countries involving children that were under five years of age, caregivers, and healthcare providers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently screened the search output, reviewed full texts of potentially eligible articles, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-one studies involving 100,747 participants are included in the review. Twenty studies were cluster-randomised and 15 studies were individually randomised controlled trials. Six studies were quasi-randomised. The studies were conducted in four upper-middle-income countries (China, Georgia, Mexico, Guatemala), 11 lower-middle-income countries (Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Zimbabwe), and three lower-income countries (Afghanistan, Mali, Rwanda). The interventions evaluated in the studies were health education (seven studies), patient reminders (13 studies), digital register (two studies), household incentives (three studies), regular immunisation outreach sessions (two studies), home visits (one study), supportive supervision (two studies), integration of immunisation services with intermittent preventive treatment of malaria (one study), payment for performance (two studies), engagement of community leaders (one study), training on interpersonal communication skills (one study), and logistic support to health facilities (one study). We judged nine of the included studies to have low risk of bias; the risk of bias in eight studies was unclear and 24 studies had high risk of bias. We found low-certainty evidence that health education (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.62; 6 studies, 4375 participants) and home-based records (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.75; 3 studies, 4019 participants) may improve coverage with DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine. Phone calls/short messages may have little or no effect on DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine uptake (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.25; 6 studies, 3869 participants; low-certainty evidence); wearable reminders probably have little or no effect on DTP3/Penta 3 uptake (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.07; 2 studies, 1567 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Use of community leaders in combination with provider intervention probably increases the uptake of DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.69; 1 study, 2020 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of immunisation outreach on DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine uptake in children under two years of age (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.56; 1 study, 541 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain about the following interventions improving full vaccination of children under two years of age: training of health providers on interpersonal communication skills (RR 5.65, 95% CI 3.62 to 8.83; 1 study, 420 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and home visits (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.45; 1 study, 419 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The same applies to the effect of training of health providers on interpersonal communication skills on the uptake of DTP3/Penta 3 by one year of age (very low-certainty evidence). The integration of immunisation with other services may, however, improve full vaccination (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.44; 1 study, 1700 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Health education, home-based records, a combination of involvement of community leaders with health provider intervention, and integration of immunisation services may improve vaccine uptake. The certainty of the evidence for the included interventions ranged from moderate to very low. Low certainty of the evidence implies that the true effect of the interventions might be markedly different from the estimated effect. Further, more rigorous RCTs are, therefore, required to generate high-certainty evidence to inform policy and practice.

PATIENT-RELATED FACTORS AND CLINICAL MANAGEMENT OUTCOMES OF RETINOBLASTOMA IN CALABAR, NIGERIA.

Background: Retinoblastoma is curable in industrialized countries. However, it is associated with mortality in resource-poor nations due to disparities and poor access to eye care. Aim was to determine the relationships between patient-related factors and clinical outcomes of Retinoblastoma management in a tertiary hospital in Nigeria. Materials and methods: This was a retrospective study of all children who were diagnosed and treated for Retinoblastoma from January 2017 through December 2022. Information obtained from their records included biosocioeconomic data, symptoms, lag time from initial symptoms, staging, treatment and outcome (dead or alive). Results: Fifty-three patients, aged 6 to 88 months on first hospital presentation were recruited. There were 29(54.7%) females and 20(37.7%) patients died. Parental low socioeconomic class, rural residence and poor nutrition occurred more in those that survived, though not significantly (p>0.05). Median(interquartile) age at diagnosis [24(18-36) months, p=0.005] and lag time [13(6-20) months, p=0.274] were low in the survived group. Bilateral Retinoblastoma (20.8%,p=0.002), brain metastasis (22.6%,p<0.001), IRSS IV (18.9%,p=0.01) and relapse (34%,p<0.001) occurred more among the patients that died. The overall survival (OS) was 22(11.77-32.23) months with 1-year OS of 63%. Treatment with only chemotherapy [HR 4.76(95%CI:1.726-13.128)], incomplete chemotherapy [HR 5.61(95%CI:1.271-24.741)], relapse [HR 5.98(95%CI:1.376-25.983)] and eye surgery after 3 chemotherapy cycles [HR 8.22(95%CI:1.087-62.239)] were predictors of mortality. Conclusion: Early presentation of retinoblastoma especially of advanced and bilateral disease may lead to improved survival if chemotherapy and eye surgery are appropriately performed. Routine screening and immediate referral of retinoblastoma particularly in rural areas are recommended.

Multiple Plasmodium falciparum drug resistance polymorphisms identified in a pregnant woman with severe malaria and a concomitant spontaneous abortion in Cross River, Nigeria, West Africa.

BACKGROUND: The development of resistance by Plasmodium falciparum to anti-malarial drugs impedes any benefits of the drug. In addition, absence or delayed availability of current anti-malarial drugs in remote areas has the potential to results to parasite escape and continuous transmission. CASE PRESENTATION: The case of a 29-year old pregnant woman from Biase Local Government Area in Cross River State Nigeria presenting with febrile illness and high body temperature of 38.7 °C was reported. She looked pale and vomited twice on arrival at the health facility. Her blood smear on the first day of hospitalization was positive for P. falciparum by RDT, microscopy (21,960 parasite/µl) and real-time PCR, with a PCV of 18%. She was treated with 600 mg intravenous quinine in 500 ml of 5% Dextrose/0.9% Saline 8-hourly for 24 h. On the second day of hospitalization, she complained of weakness, persistent high-grade fever and vaginal bleeding. A bulging amnion from an extended cervix was observed. Following venous blood collection for laboratory investigations, 600 µg of misoprostol was inserted into the posterior fornix of her vagina as part of her obstetric care. Parenteral quinine was discontinued, and she was given full therapeutic regimen of artemether-lumefantrine 80/480 mg tablets to be taken for 3 days beginning from the second day. Her blood samples on the second and third day of hospitalization remained positive for P. falciparum by all three diagnostic methods. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) assay on all three P. falciparum isolates revealed the presence of variants associated with multiple drug resistant markers. DISCUSSION: Infecting P. falciparum isolates may have been resistant to initial quinine treatment resulting from parasite cross-resistance with other quinoline associated resistant markers such as 86Y and 184 F. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, the likely transmission of similarly resistant parasites in the study area calls for reinforcement of interventions and adherence to current World Health Organization guidelines in administering only approved drugs to individuals in order to mitigate parasite escape and eventual transmission to other susceptible individuals.

Intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in infants.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent preventive treatment could help prevent malaria in infants (IPTi) living in areas of moderate to high malaria transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. The World Health Organization (WHO) policy recommended IPTi in 2010, but its adoption in countries has been limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) with antimalarial drugs to prevent malaria in infants living in malaria-endemic areas. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources up to 3 December 2018: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OVID), LILACS (Bireme), and reference lists of articles. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal for ongoing trials up to 3 December 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IPT to placebo or no intervention in infants (defined as young children aged between 1 to 12 months) in malaria-endemic areas. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was clinical malaria (fever plus asexual parasitaemia). Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted data. We summarized dichotomous outcomes and count data using risk ratios (RR) and rate ratios respectively, and presented all measures with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted protective efficacy values and their 95% CIs; when an included trial did not report this data, we calculated these values from the RR or rate ratio with its 95% CI. Where appropriate, we combined data in meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials that enrolled 19,098 infants; all were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Three trials were cluster-RCTs. IPTi with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) was evaluated in 10 trials from 1999 to 2013 (n = 15,256). Trials evaluating ACTs included dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (1 trial, 147 participants; year 2013), amodiaquine-artesunate (1 study, 684 participants; year 2008), and SP-artesunate (1 trial, 676 participants; year 2008). The earlier studies evaluated IPTi with SP, and were conducted in Tanzania (in 1999 and 2006), Mozambique (2004), Ghana (2004 to 2005), Gabon (2005), Kenya (2008), and Mali (2009). One trial evaluated IPTi with amodiaquine in Tanzania (2000). Later studies included three conducted in Kenya (2008), Tanzania (2008), and Uganda (2013), evaluating IPTi in multiple trial arms that included artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT). Although the effect size varied over time and between drugs, overall IPTi impacts on the incidence of clinical malaria overall, with a 30% reduction (rate ratio 0.70, 0.62 to 0.80; 10 studies, 10,602 participants). The effect of SP appeared to attenuate over time, with trials conducted after 2009 showing little or no effect of the intervention. IPTi with SP probably resulted in fewer episodes of clinical malaria (rate ratio 0.78, 0.69 to 0.88; 8 trials, 8774 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), anaemia (rate ratio 0.82, 0.68 to 0.98; 6 trials, 7438 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), parasitaemia (rate ratio 0.66, 0.56 to 0.79; 1 trial, 1200 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), and fewer hospital admissions (rate ratio 0.85, 0.78 to 0.93; 7 trials, 7486 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). IPTi with SP probably made little or no difference to all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.93, 0.74 to 1.15; 9 trials, 14,588 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Since 2009, IPTi trials have evaluated ACTs and indicate impact on clinical malaria and parasitaemia. A small trial of DHAP in 2013 shows substantive effects on clinical malaria (RR 0.42, 0.33 to 0.54; 1 trial, 147 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and parasitaemia (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In areas of sub-Saharan Africa, giving antimalarial drugs known to be effective against the malaria parasite at the time to infants as IPT probably reduces the risk of clinical malaria, anaemia, and hospital admission. Evidence from SP studies over a 19-year period shows declining efficacy, which may be due to increasing drug resistance. Combinations with ACTs appear promising as suitable alternatives for IPTi.

Hand hygiene for the prevention of infections in neonates.

This Cochrane Review has been withdrawn from publication. Errors were identified in the data extraction process and in the reporting of results, and as such the findings of the review may not be reliable. The authors and the Cochrane Neonatal Co-ordinating Editor agreed to withdraw the review, following an internal investigation. The authors are undertaking a full revision of this Cochrane Review, with the intention of publishing a new version.

Hand hygiene for the prevention of infections in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Hand hygiene is an inexpensive and cost-effective method of preventing infection in neonates, making it an affordable and practicable intervention in low- and middle-income settings. Therefore, hand hygiene practices may hold strong prospects for reducing the occurrence of infection and infection-related neonatal death. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of different hand hygiene agents for preventing neonatal infection in community and health facility settings. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 10 May 2019); Embase (1980 to 10 May 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 10 May 2019). We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Searches were updated 1 June 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs, cross-over trials, and quasi-RCTs that included pregnant women, mothers, other caregivers, and healthcare workers who received interventions within the community or in health facility settings DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life, bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life, all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life (early neonatal death), and all-cause mortality from the 8th to the 28th day of life (late neonatal death). MAIN RESULTS: Our review included five studies: one RCT, one quasi-RCT, and three cross-over trials with a total of more than 5450 neonates (two studies included all neonates but did not report the actual number of neonates involved). Four studies involved 279 nurses working in neonatal intensive care units and all neonates on admission. The fifth study did not clearly state how many nurses were included in the study. Studies examined the effectiveness of different hand hygiene practices for the incidence of (study author-defined) suspected infection within the first 28 days of life. Two studies were rated as low risk for selection bias, another two were rated as high risk, and one study was rated as unclear risk. One study was rated as low risk for allocation bias, and four were rated as high risk. Only one of the five studies was rated as low risk for performance bias. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) compared to plain liquid soap We are uncertain whether plain soap is better than 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) for nurses' skin based on very low-certainty evidence (mean difference (MD) -1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.31 to -0.19; 16 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no studies that reported on other outcomes for this comparison. 4% chlorhexidine gluconate compared to triclosan 1% One study compared 1% w/v triclosan with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate and suggests that 1% w/v triclosan may reduce the incidence of suspected infection (risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.60; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There may be fewer cases of infection in the 1% w/v triclosan group compared to the 4% chlorhexidine gluconate group (RR 6.01, 95% CI 3.56 to 10.14; 1916 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); however, we are uncertain of the available evidence. We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality, duration of hospital stay, and adverse events for this comparison. 2% CHG compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) We are uncertain whether 2% chlorhexidine gluconate reduces the risk of all infection in neonates compared to 61% alcohol hand sanitiser with regards to the incidence of all bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.69; 2932 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) in the 2% chlorhexidine gluconate group, but the evidence is very uncertain.   The adverse outcome was reported as mean visual scoring on the skin. There may be little to no difference between the effects of 2% CHG on nurses' skin compared to alcohol hand sanitiser based on very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.59; 118 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality and other outcomes for this comparison. None of the included studies assessed all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life nor duration of hospital stay.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain as to the superiority of one hand hygiene agent over another because this review included very few studies with very serious study limitations.

Hand-washing promotion for preventing diarrhoea.

BACKGROUND: Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of hand-washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), and metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) on 8 January 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Individually-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand-washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, we pooled incidence rate ratios (IRRs) using the generic inverse variance method and a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 RCTs: 13 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,471 participants), 15 community-based trials in LMICs (29,347 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with AIDS in a high-income country (148 participants). All the trials and follow-up assessments were of short-term duration. Hand-washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevent around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high-income countries (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 9 trials, 4664 participants, high-certainty evidence) and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs, but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (IRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; 2 trials, 45,380 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only four trials reported measures of behaviour change, and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand-washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; 3 trials, 1845 participants; low-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81; 9 trials, 15,950 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, six of these nine trials were from Asian settings, with only one trial from South America and two trials from sub-Saharan Africa. In seven trials, soap was provided free alongside hand-washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75; 7 trials, 12,646 participants; education only: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; 2 trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating or cooking, after visiting the toilet, or cleaning the baby's bottom) and increased compliance with hand-hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups compared with the control in community trials (data not pooled: 4 trials, 3591 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among a high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (mean difference -1.68, 95% CI -1.93 to -1.43; 1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hand-washing frequency increased to seven times a day in the intervention group versus three times a day in the control arm in this hospital trial (1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no trials evaluating the effects of hand-washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths or cost effectiveness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hand-washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. The included trials do not provide evidence about the long-term impact of the interventions.

ANTECEDENTES: La diarrea es responsable de 1 800 000 muertes de niños en los países de ingresos bajos y medios (PIBM). Una de las estrategias identificadas para prevenir la diarrea es el lavado de manos. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos de las intervenciones de promoción del lavado de manos sobre los episodios de diarrea en niños y adultos. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: El 8 de enero de 2020 se realizaron búsquedas en CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, en otras nueve bases de datos, la Plataforma de registros internacionales de ensayos clínicos (ICTRP) de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) y el metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), además de comprobación de referencias, búsqueda de citas y contacto con los autores de los estudios para identificar estudios adicionales. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) individuales y por conglomerados que compararon los efectos de las intervenciones de lavado de manos sobre los episodios de diarrea en niños y adultos, con ninguna intervención. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión, de forma independiente, evaluaron la elegibilidad de los ensayos, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron los riesgos de sesgo. Los análisis se estratificaron por guarderías infantiles o escuelas, comunidad y contextos hospitalarios. Cuando fue conveniente, se agruparon los cocientes de la tasa de incidencia (CTI) según el método de la varianza inversa genérica y un modelo de efectos aleatorios con un intervalo de confianza (IC) del 95%. Se utilizaron los criterios GRADE para evaluar la certeza de la evidencia. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 29 ECA: 13 ensayos de guarderías infantiles o escuelas en países principalmente de ingresos altos (54 471 participantes), 15 ensayos comunitarios en PIMB (29 347 participantes) y un ensayo hospitalario en pacientes con sida en países de ingresos altos (148 participantes). Todos los ensayos y evaluaciones de seguimiento fueron a corto plazo. La promoción del lavado de manos (actividades educativas, a veces con la provisión de jabón) en las guarderías infantiles o las escuelas previene alrededor de un tercio de los episodios de diarrea en los países de ingresos altos (cociente de tasa de incidencia [CTI] 0,70; IC del 95%: 0,58 a 0,85; nueve ensayos, 4664 participantes, evidencia de certeza alta), y podría prevenir una proporción similar en los PIMB, pero solo dos ensayos en zonas urbanas de Egipto y Kenya lo han evaluado (CTI 0,66; IC del 95%: 0,43 a 0,99; dos ensayos, 45 380 participantes, evidencia de certeza baja). Solo cuatro ensayos informaron sobre medidas de cambio en el comportamiento y los métodos de recopilación de datos fueron susceptibles de sesgo. En un ensayo de los EE.UU. se informó de que el comportamiento de lavado de manos mejoró; y en el ensayo de Kenya que proporcionó jabón gratuito, el lavado de manos no aumentó, pero sí el uso de jabón (datos no agrupados; tres ensayos, 1845 participantes, evidencia de certeza baja). La promoción del lavado de manos entre las comunidades en los PIMB probablemente previene alrededor de una cuarta parte de los episodios de diarrea (CTI 0,71; IC del 95%: 0,62 a 0,81; nueve ensayos, 15 950 participantes, evidencia de calidad moderada). Sin embargo, seis de estos nueve ensayos procedían de entornos asiáticos, y solo hubo un ensayo en América del Sur y dos en el África subsahariana. En siete ensayos, el jabón se suministró gratuitamente junto con la educación para el lavado de manos, y el tamaño del efecto medio general fue mayor que en los dos ensayos que no suministraron jabón (jabón suministrado: RR 0,66; IC del 95%: 0,58 a 0,75; siete ensayos, 12 646 participantes; solo educación: RR 0,84; IC del 95%: 0,67 a 1,05; dos ensayos, 3304 participantes). Hubo un aumento del lavado de manos en los momentos más importantes (antes de comer o cocinar, después de ir al baño o de limpiar el trasero del niño), y un aumento en el cumplimiento del procedimiento de higiene de las manos (resultado conductual) en los grupos de intervención, en comparación el control, en los ensayos comunitarios (datos no agrupados: cuatro ensayos, 3591 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta). La promoción del lavado de manos en el único ensayo realizado en un hospital en una población de alto riesgo mostró una reducción significativa de los episodios medios de diarrea (1,68 menos) en el grupo de intervención (diferencia de medias ­1,68; IC del 95%: ­1,93 a ­1,43; un ensayo, 148 participantes, evidencia de certeza moderada). En este ensayo hospitalario la frecuencia del lavado de manos aumentó hasta siete veces al día en el grupo de intervención versus tres veces al día en el grupo control (un ensayo, 148 participantes, evidencia de certeza moderada). No se encontraron ensayos que evaluaran los efectos de la promoción del lavado de manos sobre las muertes relacionadas con la diarrea ni el coste­efectividad. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: La promoción del lavado de manos probablemente reduce los episodios de diarrea en las guarderías infantiles de los países de altos ingresos y en las comunidades que viven en los PIMB, en aproximadamente el 30%. Los ensayos incluidos no aportan evidencia sobre el efecto a largo plazo de esta intervención.

Vitamin D, calcium or a combination of vitamin D and calcium for the treatment of nutritional rickets in children.

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

Intermittent preventive treatment for malaria in infants.

BACKGROUND: Intermittent preventive treatment could help prevent malaria in infants (IPTi) living in areas of moderate to high malaria transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. The World Health Organization (WHO) policy recommended IPTi in 2010, but its adoption in countries has been limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) with antimalarial drugs to prevent malaria in infants living in malaria-endemic areas. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources up to 3 December 2018: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (OVID), LILACS (Bireme), and reference lists of articles. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal for ongoing trials up to 3 December 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IPT to placebo or no intervention in infants (defined as young children aged between 1 to 12 months) in malaria-endemic areas. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was clinical malaria (fever plus asexual parasitaemia). Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias, and extracted data. We summarized dichotomous outcomes and count data using risk ratios (RR) and rate ratios respectively, and presented all measures with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We extracted protective efficacy values and their 95% CIs; when an included trial did not report this data, we calculated these values from the RR or rate ratio with its 95% CI. Where appropriate, we combined data in meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials that enrolled 19,098 infants; all were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Three trials were cluster-RCTs. IPTi with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) was evaluated in 10 trials from 1999 to 2013 (n = 15,256). Trials evaluating ACTs included dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (1 trial, 147 participants; year 2013), amodiaquine-artesunate (1 study, 684 participants; year 2008), and SP-artesunate (1 trial, 676 participants; year 2008). The earlier studies evaluated IPTi with SP, and were conducted in Tanzania (in 1999 and 2006), Mozambique (2004), Ghana (2004 to 2005), Gabon (2005), Kenya (2008), and Mali (2009). One trial evaluated IPTi with amodiaquine in Tanzania (2000). Later studies included three conducted in Kenya (2008), Tanzania (2008), and Uganda (2013), evaluating IPTi in multiple trial arms that included artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT). Although the effect size varied over time and between drugs, overall IPTi impacts on the incidence of clinical malaria overall, with a 27% reduction (rate ratio 0.73, 0.65 to 0.82; 10 studies, 10,602 participants). The effect of SP appeared to attenuate over time, with trials conducted after 2009 showing little or no effect of the intervention. IPTi with SP probably resulted in fewer episodes of clinical malaria (rate ratio 0.79, 0.74 to 0.85; 8 trials, 8774 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), anaemia (rate ratio 0.82, 0.68 to 0.98; 6 trials, 7438 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), parasitaemia (rate ratio 0.66, 0.56 to 0.79; 1 trial, 1200 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), and fewer hospital admissions (rate ratio 0.85, 0.78 to 0.93; 7 trials, 7486 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). IPTi with SP probably made little or no difference to all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.93, 0.74 to 1.15; 9 trials, 14,588 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Since 2009, IPTi trials have evaluated ACTs and indicate impact on clinical malaria and parasitaemia. A small trial of DHAP in 2013 shows substantive effects on clinical malaria (RR 0.42, 0.33 to 0.54; 1 trial, 147 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and parasitaemia (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In areas of sub-Saharan Africa, giving antimalarial drugs known to be effective against the malaria parasite at the time to infants as IPT probably reduces the risk of clinical malaria, anaemia, and hospital admission. Evidence from SP studies over a 19-year period shows declining efficacy, which may be due to increasing drug resistance. Combinations with ACTs appear promising as suitable alternatives for IPTi. 2 December 2019 Up to date All studies incorporated from most recent search All eligible published studies found in the last search (3 Dec, 2018) were included.

Artemether for severe malaria.

BACKGROUND: In 2011 the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended parenteral artesunate in preference to quinine as first-line treatment for people with severe malaria. Prior to this recommendation many countries, particularly in Africa, had begun to use artemether, an alternative artemisinin derivative. This Cochrane Review evaluates intramuscular artemether compared with both quinine and artesunate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of intramuscular artemether versus any other parenteral medication in the treatment of severe malaria in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS, ISI Web of Science, conference proceedings, and reference lists of articles. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) for ongoing trials up to 7 September 2018. We checked the reference lists of all studies identified by the search. We examined references listed in review articles and previously compiled bibliographies to look for eligible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intramuscular artemether with intravenous/intramuscular quinine or artesunate for treating severe malaria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was all-cause death. Two review authors independently screened each article by title and abstract, and examined potentially relevant studies for inclusion using an eligibility form. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs), and have presented both measures with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where appropriate, we combined data in meta-analyses and used the GRADE approach to summarize the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs, enrolling 2874 adults and children with severe malaria, carried out in Africa (12 trials) and in Asia (7 trials).Artemether versus quinineFor children, there is probably little or no difference in the risk of death between intramuscular artemether and quinine (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.21; 13 trials, 1659 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Coma resolution time may be about five hours shorter with artemether (MD -5.45, 95% CI -7.90 to -3.00; six trials, 358 participants, low-certainty evidence). Artemether may make little difference to neurological sequelae (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.07; seven trials, 968 participants, low-certainty evidence). Compared to quinine, artemether probably shortens the parasite clearance time by about nine hours (MD -9.03, 95% CI -11.43 to -6.63; seven trials, 420 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), and may shorten the fever clearance time by about three hours (MD -3.73, 95% CI -6.55 to -0.92; eight trials, 457 participants, low-certainty evidence).For adults, treatment with intramuscular artemether probably results in fewer deaths than treatment with quinine (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83; four trials, 716 participants, moderate-certainty evidence).Artemether versus artesunateArtemether and artesunate have not been directly compared in randomized trials in children.For adults, mortality is probably higher with intramuscular artemether (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.97; two trials, 494 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Artemether appears to be more effective than quinine in children and adults. Artemether compared to artesunate has not been extensively studied, but in adults it appears inferior. These findings are consistent with the WHO recommendations that artesunate is the drug of choice, but artemether is acceptable when artesunate is not available.

Honey for acute cough in children.

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

Fluid replacement therapy for acute episodes of pain in people with sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Treating vaso-occlusive painful crises in people with sickle cell disease is complex and requires multiple interventions. Extra fluids are routinely given as adjunct treatment, regardless of the individual's state of hydration with the aim of slowing or stopping the sickling process and thereby alleviating pain. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the optimal route, quantity and type of fluid replacement for people with sickle cell disease with acute painful crises. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.We also conducted searches of Embase (November 2007), LILACS, www.ClinicalTrials.gov (05 January 2010), and the WHO ICTRP (30 June 2017).Date of most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 16 February 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the administration of supplemental fluids adjunctive to analgesics by any route in people with any type of sickle cell disease during an acute painful episode, under medical supervision (inpatient, day care or community). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No relevant trials have yet been identified. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials were identified by the searches, all of which were not eligible for inclusion in the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Treating vaso-occlusive crises is complex and requires multiple interventions. Extra fluids, generally oral or intravenous, are routinely administered during acute painful episodes to people with sickle cell disease regardless of the individual's state of hydration. Reports of their use during these acute painful episodes do not state the efficacy of any single route, type or quantity of fluid compared to another. However, there are no randomised controlled trials that have assessed the safety and efficacy of different routes, types or quantities of fluid. This systematic review identifies the need for a multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy and possible adverse effects of different routes, types and quantities of fluid administered to people with sickle cell disease during acute painful episodes.

Routine vitamin A supplementation for the prevention of blindness due to measles infection in children.

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

Interventions for preventing unintended pregnancies among adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Unintended pregnancy among adolescents represents an important public health challenge in high-income countries, as well as middle- and low-income countries. Numerous prevention strategies such as health education, skills-building and improving accessibility to contraceptives have been employed by countries across the world, in an effort to address this problem. However, there is uncertainty regarding the effects of these interventions, hence the need to review the evidence-base. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of primary prevention interventions (school-based, community/home-based, clinic-based, and faith-based) on unintended pregnancies among adolescents. SEARCH METHODS: We searched all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status up to November 2015. We searched the Cochrane Fertility Regulation Group Specialised trial register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015 Issue 11), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index, Dissertations Abstracts Online, The Gray Literature Network, HealthStar, PsycINFO, CINAHL and POPLINE and the reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included both individual and cluster randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any interventions that aimed to increase knowledge and attitudes relating to risk of unintended pregnancies, promote delay in the initiation of sexual intercourse and encourage consistent use of birth control methods to reduce unintended pregnancies in adolescents aged 10 years to 19 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate, binary outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (Cl). Where appropriate, we combined data in meta-analyses and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 53 RCTs that enrolled 105,368 adolescents. Participants were ethnically diverse. Eighteen studies randomised individuals, 32 randomised clusters (schools (20), classrooms (6), and communities/neighbourhoods (6). Three studies were mixed (individually and cluster randomised). The length of follow up varied from three months to seven years with more than 12 months being the most common duration. Four trials were conducted in low- and middle- income countries, and all others were conducted in high-income countries. Multiple interventionsResults showed that multiple interventions (combination of educational and contraceptive-promoting interventions) lowered the risk of unintended pregnancy among adolescents significantly (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.87; 4 individual RCTs, 1905 participants, moderate quality evidence. However, this reduction was not statistically significant from cluster RCTs. Evidence on the possible effects of interventions on secondary outcomes (initiation of sexual intercourse, use of birth control methods, abortion, childbirth, sexually transmitted diseases) was not conclusive.Methodological strengths included a relatively large sample size and statistical control for baseline differences, while limitations included lack of biological outcomes, possible self-report bias, analysis neglecting clustered randomisation and the use of different statistical tests in reporting outcomes. Educational interventionsEducational interventions were unlikely to significantly delay the initiation of sexual intercourse among adolescents compared to controls (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; 2 studies, 672 participants, low quality evidence).Educational interventions significantly increased reported condom use at last sex in adolescents compared to controls who did not receive the intervention (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.32; 2 studies, 1431 participants, moderate quality evidence).However, it is not clear if the educational interventions had any effect on unintended pregnancy as this was not reported by any of the included studies. Contraceptive-promoting interventionsFor adolescents who received contraceptive-promoting interventions, there was little or no difference in the risk of unintended first pregnancy compared to controls (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.26; 2 studies, 3,440 participants, moderate quality evidence).The use of hormonal contraceptives was significantly higher in adolescents in the intervention group compared to those in the control group (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 4.62; 2 studies, 3,091 participants, high quality evidence) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A combination of educational and contraceptive-promoting interventions appears to reduce unintended pregnancy among adolescents.  Evidence for programme effects on biological measures is limited. The variability in study populations, interventions and outcomes of included trials, and the paucity of studies directly comparing different interventions preclude a definitive conclusion regarding which type of intervention is most effective.

Interventions for improving coverage of childhood immunisation in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Immunisation is a powerful public health strategy for improving child survival, not only by directly combating key diseases that kill children but also by providing a platform for other health services. However, each year millions of children worldwide, mostly from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), do not receive the full series of vaccines on their national routine immunisation schedule. This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2011 and focuses on interventions for improving childhood immunisation coverage in LMICs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of intervention strategies to boost and sustain high childhood immunisation coverage in LMICs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2016, Issue 4, part of The Cochrane Library. www.cochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 12 May 2016); MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE Daily and MEDLINE 1946 to Present, OvidSP (searched 12 May 2016); CINAHL 1981 to present, EbscoHost (searched 12 May 2016); Embase 1980 to 2014 Week 34, OvidSP (searched 2 September 2014); LILACS, VHL (searched 2 September 2014); Sociological Abstracts 1952 - current, ProQuest (searched 2 September 2014). We did a citation search for all included studies in Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, 1975 to present; Emerging Sources Citation Index 2015 to present, ISI Web of Science (searched 2 July 2016). We also searched the two Trials Registries: ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 5 July 2016) SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series conducted in LMICs involving children aged from birth to four years, caregivers, and healthcare providers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently screened the search output, reviewed full texts of potentially eligible articles, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data in duplicate; resolving discrepancies by consensus. We then conducted random-effects meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies (10 cluster RCTs and four individual RCTs) met our inclusion criteria. These were conducted in Georgia (one study), Ghana (one study), Honduras (one study), India (two studies), Mali (one study), Mexico (one study), Nicaragua (one study), Nepal (one study), Pakistan (four studies), and Zimbabwe (one study). One study had an unclear risk of bias, and 13 had high risk of bias. The interventions evaluated in the studies included community-based health education (three studies), facility-based health education (three studies), household incentives (three studies), regular immunisation outreach sessions (one study), home visits (one study), supportive supervision (one study), information campaigns (one study), and integration of immunisation services with intermittent preventive treatment of malaria (one study).We found moderate-certainty evidence that health education at village meetings or at home probably improves coverage with three doses of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines (DTP3: risk ratio (RR) 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 2.59). We also found low-certainty evidence that facility-based health education plus redesigned vaccination reminder cards may improve DTP3 coverage (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.87). Household monetary incentives may have little or no effect on full immunisation coverage (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.23, low-certainty evidence). Regular immunisation outreach may improve full immunisation coverage (RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.69 to 5.67, low-certainty evidence) which may substantially improve if combined with household incentives (RR 6.66, 95% CI 3.93 to 11.28, low-certainty evidence). Home visits to identify non-vaccinated children and refer them to health clinics may improve uptake of three doses of oral polio vaccine (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.39, low-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence that integration of immunisation with other services may improve DTP3 coverage (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.59). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Providing parents and other community members with information on immunisation, health education at facilities in combination with redesigned immunisation reminder cards, regular immunisation outreach with and without household incentives, home visits, and integration of immunisation with other services may improve childhood immunisation coverage in LMIC. Most of the evidence was of low certainty, which implies a high likelihood that the true effect of the interventions will be substantially different. There is thus a need for further well-conducted RCTs to assess the effects of interventions for improving childhood immunisation coverage in LMICs.

Fluid replacement therapy for acute episodes of pain in people with sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Treating vaso-occlusive painful crises in people with sickle cell disease is complex and requires multiple interventions. Extra fluids are routinely given as adjunct treatment, regardless of the individual's state of hydration with the aim of slowing or stopping the sickling process and thereby alleviating pain. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the optimal route, quantity and type of fluid replacement for people with sickle cell disease with acute painful crises. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.We also conducted searches of Embase (November 2007), LILACS and www.ClinicalTrials.gov (05 January 2010).Date of most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 24 September 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the administration of supplemental fluids adjunctive to analgesics by any route in people with any type of sickle cell disease during an acute painful episode, under medical supervision (inpatient, day care or community). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No relevant trials have yet been identified. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials were identified by the searches, all of which were not eligible for inclusion in the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Treating vaso-occlusive crises is complex and requires multiple interventions. Extra fluids, generally oral or intravenous, are routinely administered during acute painful episodes to people with sickle cell disease regardless of the individual's state of hydration. Reports of their use during these acute painful episodes do not state the efficacy of any single route, type or quantity of fluid compared to another. However, there are no randomised controlled trials that have assessed the safety and efficacy of different routes, types or quantities of fluid. This systematic review identifies the need for a multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy and possible adverse effects of different routes, types and quantities of fluid administered to people with sickle cell disease during acute painful episodes.

Hand washing promotion for preventing diarrhoea.

BACKGROUND: Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of hand washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (27 May 2015); CENTRAL (published in the Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5); MEDLINE (1966 to 27 May 2015); EMBASE (1974 to 27 May 2015); LILACS (1982 to 27 May 2015); PsycINFO (1967 to 27 May 2015); Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index (1981 to 27 May 2015); ERIC (1966 to 27 May 2015); SPECTR (2000 to 27 May 2015); Bibliomap (1990 to 27 May 2015); RoRe, The Grey Literature (2002 to 27 May 2015); World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), and reference lists of articles up to 27 May 2015. We also contacted researchers and organizations in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Individually randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, incidence rate ratios (IRR) were pooled using the generic inverse variance method and random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs: 12 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,006 participants), nine community-based trials in LMICs (15,303 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) (148 participants).Hand washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevents around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high income countries (rate ratio 0.70; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; nine trials, 4664 participants, high quality evidence), and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; two trials, 45,380 participants, low quality evidence). Only three trials reported measures of behaviour change and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; three trials, 1845 participants, low quality evidence).Hand washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83; eight trials, 14,726 participants, moderate quality evidence). However, six of these eight trials were from Asian settings, with only single trials from South America and sub-Saharan Africa. In six trials, soap was provided free alongside hand washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78; six trials, 11,422 participants; education only: rate ratio: 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; two trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating/cooking, after visiting the toilet or cleaning the baby's bottom), and increased compliance to hand hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups than the control in community trials (data not pooled: three trials, 3490 participants, high quality evidence).Hand washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (Mean difference 1.68, 95% CI 1.93 to 1.43; one trial, 148 participants, moderate quality evidence). There was increase in hand washing frequency, seven times per day in the intervention group versus three times in the control in this hospital trial (one trial, 148 participants, moderate quality evidence).We found no trials evaluating or reporting the effects of hand washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths, all-cause-under five mortality, or costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Hand washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. However, less is known about how to help people maintain hand washing habits in the longer term.

Honey for acute cough in children.

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

Routine vitamin A supplementation for the prevention of blindness due to measles infection in children.

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