Technology for managing incontinence: What are the research priorities?

Incontinence and toileting difficulties can often be successfully addressed by treating their underlying causes. However, (complete) cure is not always possible and continence products to prevent or contain unresolved leakage or to facilitate toileting are in widespread use. Many people use them successfully but identifying the product(s) most likely to meet individual needs can be challenging and the recently published Seventh International Consultation on Incontinence includes a chapter which draws on the literature to provide evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians and product users to select appropriate products. This paper is based on the same evidence, but reviewed from the different perspective of those keen to identify unmet needs and develop improved products. For each of the main continence product categories it (i) outlines the design approach and key features of what is currently available; (ii) provides a generic functional design specification; (iii) reviews how well existing products meet the requirements of their main user groups; and (iv) suggests priorities for the attention of product designers. It also flags some core scientific problems which - if successfully addressed - would likely yield benefits in multiple incontinence product contexts.

Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that people with COVID-19 and pre-existing autoantibodies against type I interferons are likely to develop an inflammatory cytokine storm responsible for severe respiratory symptoms. Since interleukin 6 (IL-6) is one of the cytokines released during this inflammatory process, IL-6 blocking agents have been used for treating people with severe COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to a placebo for people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to identify studies on 7 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IL-6 blocking agents compared to standard care alone or to placebo for people with COVID-19, regardless of disease severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of researchers independently conducted study selection, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for all critical and important outcomes. In this update we amended our protocol to update the methods used for grading evidence by establishing minimal important differences for the critical outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 22 additional trials, for a total of 32 trials including 12,160 randomized participants all hospitalized for COVID-19 disease. We identified a further 17 registered RCTs evaluating IL-6 blocking agents without results available as of 7 June 2022.  The mean age range varied from 56 to 75 years; 66.2% (8051/12,160) of enrolled participants were men. One-third (11/32) of included trials were placebo-controlled. Twenty-two were published in peer-reviewed journals, three were reported as preprints, two trials had results posted only on registries, and results from five trials were retrieved from another meta-analysis. Eight were funded by pharmaceutical companies.  Twenty-six included studies were multicenter trials; four were multinational and 22 took place in single countries. Recruitment of participants occurred between February 2020 and June 2021, with a mean enrollment duration of 21 weeks (range 1 to 54 weeks). Nineteen trials (60%) had a follow-up of 60 days or more. Disease severity ranged from mild to critical disease. The proportion of participants who were intubated at study inclusion also varied from 5% to 95%. Only six trials reported vaccination status; there were no vaccinated participants included in these trials, and 17 trials were conducted before vaccination was rolled out. We assessed a total of six treatments, each compared to placebo or standard care. Twenty trials assessed tocilizumab, nine assessed sarilumab, and two assessed clazakizumab. Only one trial was included for each of the other IL-6 blocking agents (siltuximab, olokizumab, and levilimab). Two trials assessed more than one treatment. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab and sarilumab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 At day (D) 28, tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement (tocilizumab: risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11; 15 RCTs, 6116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; sarilumab: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 2425 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For clinical improvement at ≥ D60, the certainty of evidence is very low for both tocilizumab (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 97 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and sarilumab (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.63; 2 RCTs, 239 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The effect of tocilizumab on the proportion of participants with a WHO Clinical Progression Score (WHO-CPS) of level 7 or above remains uncertain at D28 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 13 RCTs, 2117 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that for sarilumab very uncertain (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.33; 5 RCTs, 886 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab reduces all cause-mortality at D28 compared to standard care/placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; 18 RCTs, 7428 participants; high-certainty evidence). The evidence about the effect of sarilumab on this outcome is very uncertain (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; 9 RCTs, 3305 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain for all cause-mortality at ≥ D60 for tocilizumab (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; 9 RCTs, 2775 participants; low-certainty evidence) and very uncertain for sarilumab (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; 6 RCTs, 3379 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Tocilizumab probably results in little to no difference in the risk of adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 9 RCTs, 1811 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence about adverse events for sarilumab is uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.28; 4 RCT, 860 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The evidence about serious adverse events is very uncertain for tocilizumab (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; 16 RCTs; 2974 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and uncertain for sarilumab (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 6 RCTs; 2936 participants; low-certainty evidence). Efficacy and safety of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab and levilimab compared to standard care or placebo for treating COVID-19 The evidence about the effects of clazakizumab, olokizumab, siltuximab, and levilimab comes from only one or two studies for each blocking agent, and is uncertain or very uncertain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized people with COVID-19, results show a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on all-cause mortality in the short term and probably little or no difference in the risk of adverse events compared to standard care alone or placebo. Nevertheless, both tocilizumab and sarilumab probably result in little or no increase in clinical improvement at D28. Evidence for an effect of sarilumab and the other IL-6 blocking agents on critical outcomes is uncertain or very uncertain. Most of the trials included in our review were done before the waves of different variants of concern and before vaccination was rolled out on a large scale. An additional 17 RCTs of IL-6 blocking agents are currently registered with no results yet reported. The number of pending studies and the number of participants planned is low. Consequently, we will not publish further updates of this review.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology. OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases. SEARCH METHODS: The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

Mobile technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care.

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of mobile technologies can potentially expand the use of telemedicine approaches to facilitate communication between healthcare providers, this might increase access to specialist advice and improve patient health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of mobile technologies versus usual care for supporting communication and consultations between healthcare providers on healthcare providers' performance, acceptability and satisfaction, healthcare use, patient health outcomes, acceptability and satisfaction, costs, and technical difficulties. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and three other databases from 1 January 2000 to 22 July 2019. We searched clinical trials registries, checked references of relevant systematic reviews and included studies, and contacted topic experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing mobile technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and consultations compared with usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 trials (5766 participants when reported), most were conducted in high-income countries. The most frequently used mobile technology was a mobile phone, often accompanied by training if it was used to transfer digital images. Trials recruited participants with different conditions, and interventions varied in delivery, components, and frequency of contact. We judged most trials to have high risk of performance bias, and approximately half had a high risk of detection, attrition, and reporting biases. Two studies reported data on technical problems, reporting few difficulties. Mobile technologies used by primary care providers to consult with hospital specialists We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low. Mobile technologies: - probably make little or no difference to primary care providers following guidelines for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD; 1 trial, 47 general practices, 3004 participants); - probably reduce the time between presentation and management of individuals with skin conditions, people with symptoms requiring an ultrasound, or being referred for an appointment with a specialist after attending primary care (4 trials, 656 participants); - may reduce referrals and clinic visits among people with some skin conditions, and increase the likelihood of receiving retinopathy screening among people with diabetes, or an ultrasound in those referred with symptoms (9 trials, 4810 participants when reported); - probably make little or no difference to patient-reported quality of life and health-related quality of life (2 trials, 622 participants) or to clinician-assessed clinical recovery (2 trials, 769 participants) among individuals with skin conditions; - may make little or no difference to healthcare provider (2 trials, 378 participants) or participant acceptability and satisfaction (4 trials, 972 participants) when primary care providers consult with dermatologists; - may make little or no difference for total or expected costs per participant for adults with some skin conditions or CKD (6 trials, 5423 participants). Mobile technologies used by emergency physicians to consult with hospital specialists about people attending the emergency department We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate. Mobile technologies: - probably slightly reduce the consultation time between emergency physicians and hospital specialists (median difference -12 minutes, 95% CI -19 to -7; 1 trial, 345 participants); - probably reduce participants' length of stay in the emergency department by a few minutes (median difference -30 minutes, 95% CI -37 to -25; 1 trial, 345 participants). We did not identify trials that reported on providers' adherence, participants' health status and well-being, healthcare provider and participant acceptability and satisfaction, or costs. Mobile technologies used by community health workers or home-care workers to consult with clinic staff We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low. Mobile technologies: - probably make little or no difference in the number of outpatient clinic and community nurse consultations for participants with diabetes or older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (2 trials, 370 participants) or hospitalisation of older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (1 trial, 188 participants); - may lead to little or no difference in mortality among people living with HIV (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.22) or diabetes (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.12) (2 trials, 1152 participants); - may make little or no difference to participants' disease activity or health-related quality of life in participants with rheumatoid arthritis (1 trial, 85 participants); - probably make little or no difference for participant acceptability and satisfaction for participants with diabetes and participants with rheumatoid arthritis (2 trials, 178 participants). We did not identify any trials that reported on providers' adherence, time between presentation and management, healthcare provider acceptability and satisfaction, or costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited. Interventions including a mobile technology component to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care may reduce the time between presentation and management of the health condition when primary care providers or emergency physicians use them to consult with specialists, and may increase the likelihood of receiving a clinical examination among participants with diabetes and those who required an ultrasound. They may decrease the number of people attending primary care who are referred to secondary or tertiary care in some conditions, such as some skin conditions and CKD. There was little evidence of effects on participants' health status and well-being, satisfaction, or costs.

Comparison of different human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine types and dose schedules for prevention of HPV-related disease in females and males.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine remains low in many countries, although the bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines given as a three-dose schedule are effective in the prevention of precancerous lesions of the cervix in women. Simpler immunisation schedules, such as those with fewer doses, might reduce barriers to vaccination, as may programmes that include males. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and harms of different dose schedules and different types of HPV vaccines in females and males. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches on 27 September 2018 in Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (in the Cochrane Library), and Ovid Embase. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov (both 27 September 2018), vaccine manufacturer websites, and checked reference lists from an index of HPV studies and other relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with no language restriction. We considered studies if they enrolled HIV-negative males or females aged 9 to 26 years, or HIV-positive males or females of any age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used methods recommended by Cochrane. We use the term 'control' to refer to comparator products containing an adjuvant or active vaccine and 'placebo' to refer to products that contain no adjuvant or active vaccine. Most primary outcomes in this review were clinical outcomes. However, for comparisons comparing dose schedules, the included RCTs were designed to measure antibody responses (i.e. immunogenicity) as the primary outcome, rather than clinical outcomes, since it is unethical to collect cervical samples from girls under 16 years of age. We analysed immunogenicity outcomes (i.e. geometric mean titres) with ratios of means, clinical outcomes (e.g. cancer and intraepithelial neoplasia) with risk ratios or rate ratios and, for serious adverse events and deaths, we calculated odds ratios. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 RCTs with 31,940 participants. The length of follow-up in the included studies ranged from seven months to five years. Two doses versus three doses of HPV vaccine in 9- to 15-year-old females Antibody responses after two-dose and three-dose HPV vaccine schedules were similar after up to five years of follow-up (4 RCTs, moderate- to high-certainty evidence). No RCTs collected clinical outcome data. Evidence about serious adverse events in studies comparing dose schedules was of very low-certainty owing to imprecision and indirectness (three doses 35/1159; two doses 36/1158; 4 RCTs). One death was reported in the three-dose group (1/898) and none in the two-dose group (0/899) (low-certainty evidence). Interval between doses of HPV vaccine in 9- to 14-year-old females and males Antibody responses were stronger with a longer interval (6 or 12 months) between the first two doses of HPV vaccine than a shorter interval (2 or 6 months) at up to three years of follow-up (4 RCTs, moderate- to high-certainty evidence). No RCTs collected data about clinical outcomes. Evidence about serious adverse events in studies comparing intervals was of very low-certainty, owing to imprecision and indirectness. No deaths were reported in any of the studies (0/1898, 3 RCTs, low-certainty evidence). HPV vaccination of 10- to 26-year-old males In one RCT there was moderate-certainty evidence that quadrivalent HPV vaccine, compared with control, reduced the incidence of external genital lesions (control 36 per 3081 person-years; quadrivalent 6 per 3173 person-years; rate ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.38; 6254 person-years) and anogenital warts (control 28 per 2814 person-years; quadrivalent 3 per 2831 person-years; rate ratio 0.11, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.38; 5645 person-years). The quadrivalent vaccine resulted in more injection-site adverse events, such as pain or redness, than control (537 versus 601 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.18, 3895 participants, high-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence from two RCTs about serious adverse events with quadrivalent vaccine (control 12/2588; quadrivalent 8/2574), and about deaths (control 11/2591; quadrivalent 3/2582), owing to imprecision and indirectness. Nonavalent versus quadrivalent vaccine in 9- to 26-year-old females and males Three RCTs were included; one in females aged 9- to 15-years (n = 600), one in females aged 16- to 26-years (n = 14,215), and one in males aged 16- to 26-years (n = 500). The RCT in 16- to 26-year-old females reported clinical outcomes. There was little to no difference in the incidence of the combined outcome of high-grade cervical epithelial neoplasia, adenocarcinoma in situ, or cervical cancer between the HPV vaccines (quadrivalent 325/6882, nonavalent 326/6871; OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; 13,753 participants; high-certainty evidence). The other two RCTs did not collect data about clinical outcomes. There were slightly more local adverse events with the nonavalent vaccine (905 per 1000) than the quadrivalent vaccine (846 per 1000) (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.08; 3 RCTs, 15,863 participants; high-certainty evidence). Comparative evidence about serious adverse events in the three RCTs (nonavalent 243/8234, quadrivalent 192/7629; OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.61) was of low certainty, owing to imprecision and indirectness. HPV vaccination for people living with HIV Seven RCTs reported on HPV vaccines in people with HIV, with two small trials that collected data about clinical outcomes. Antibody responses were higher following vaccination with either bivalent or quadrivalent HPV vaccine than with control, and these responses could be demonstrated to have been maintained for up to 24 months in children living with HIV (low-certainty evidence). The evidence about clinical outcomes and harms for HPV vaccines in people with HIV is very uncertain (low- to very low-certainty evidence), owing to imprecision and indirectness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The immunogenicity of two-dose and three-dose HPV vaccine schedules, measured using antibody responses in young females, is comparable. The quadrivalent vaccine probably reduces external genital lesions and anogenital warts in males compared with control. The nonavalent and quadrivalent vaccines offer similar protection against a combined outcome of cervical, vaginal, and vulval precancer lesions or cancer. In people living with HIV, both the bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines result in high antibody responses. For all comparisons of alternative HPV vaccine schedules, the certainty of the body of evidence about serious adverse events reported during the study periods was low or very low, either because the number of events was low, or the evidence was indirect, or both. Post-marketing surveillance is needed to continue monitoring harms that might be associated with HPV vaccines in the population, and this evidence will be incorporated in future updates of this review. Long-term observational studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of reduced-dose schedules against HPV-related cancer endpoints, and whether adopting these schedules improves vaccine coverage rates.

ANTECEDENTES: La aceptación de la vacuna contra el virus del papiloma humano (VPH) sigue siendo baja en muchos países, aunque las vacunas bivalentes y cuadrivalentes contra el VPH administradas en un calendario de tres dosis son efectivas para prevenir las lesiones precancerosas del cuello uterino en las mujeres. Los calendarios de vacunación más sencillos, como los que incluyen menos dosis, podrían reducir las barreras a la vacunación, al igual que los calendarios que incluyen a los hombres. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la eficacia, la inmunogenicidad y los efectos perjudiciales de diferentes calendarios de dosis y diferentes tipos de vacunas contra el VPH en mujeres y hombres. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas electrónicas el 27 de septiembre 2018 en Ovid MEDLINE, el Registro Cochrane Central de Ensayos Controlados (CENTRAL) (en la Biblioteca Cochrane) y Ovid Embase. También se realizaron búsquedas en la International Clinical Trials Registry Platform de la OMS y en ClinicalTrials.gov (ambas el 27 de septiembre 2018), en sitios web de fabricantes de vacunas y se verificaron las listas de referencias de un índice de estudios sobre el VPH y otras revisiones sistemáticas pertinentes. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) sin restricciones de idioma. Se consideraron los estudios cuando habían reclutado a hombres o mujeres con pruebas negativas para el VIH de 9 a 26 años de edad, o a hombres o mujeres con pruebas positivas para el VIH de cualquier edad. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se siguieron los métodos recomendados por Cochrane. Se utilizó el término "control" para hacer referencia a los productos de comparación que contienen un adyuvante o vacuna activa y "placebo" para hacer referencia a los productos que no contienen un adyuvante ni vacuna activa. La mayoría de los resultados primarios de esta revisión fueron resultados clínicos. Sin embargo, para las comparaciones de los calendarios de dosis, los ECA incluidos se diseñaron para medir las respuestas de los anticuerpos (es decir, la inmunogenicidad) como resultado primario, en lugar de los resultados clínicos, debido a que no es ético recoger muestras del cuello uterino de niñas menores de 16 años de edad. Se analizaron los resultados de inmunogenicidad (es decir, títulos de la media geométrica) con los cocientes de medias, los resultados clínicos (p.ej. cáncer y neoplasia intraepitelial) con los cocientes de riesgos o los cocientes de tasas y, para los eventos adversos graves y las muertes, se calcularon los odds­ratios. La certeza de la evidencia se evaluó con los criterios GRADE. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 20 ECA con 31 940 participantes. La duración del seguimiento en los estudios incluidos varió de siete meses a cinco años. Dos dosis frente a tres dosis de la vacuna contra el VPH en mujeres de 9 a 15 años de edad Las respuestas de los anticuerpos después de los calendarios de dos y tres dosis de la vacuna contra el VPH fueron similares después de hasta cinco años de seguimiento (4 ECA, evidencia de certeza moderada a alta). Ningún ECA recopiló datos de los resultados clínicos. La evidencia acerca de los eventos adversos graves en los estudios que compararon los calendarios de dosis fue de certeza muy baja debido a la imprecisión y a la falta de direccionalidad (tres dosis 35/1159; dos dosis 36/1158; 4 ECA). Se informó una muerte en el grupo de tres dosis (1/898) y ninguna en el grupo de dos dosis (0/899) (evidencia de certeza baja). Intervalo entre las dosis de la vacuna contra el VPH en mujeres y hombres de 9 a 14 años de edad Las respuestas de los anticuerpos fueron más significativas con un intervalo más largo (6 o 12 meses) entre las dos primeras dosis de la vacuna contra el VPH que con un intervalo más corto (2 o 6 meses) al momento del seguimiento de hasta tres años (4 ECA, evidencia de certeza moderada a alta). Ningún ECA recopiló datos sobre los resultados clínicos. La evidencia acerca de los eventos adversos graves en los estudios que compararon los intervalos fue de certeza muy baja, debido a la imprecisión y a la falta de direccionalidad. No se informaron muertes en ninguno de los estudios (0/1898, 3 ECA, evidencia de certeza baja). Vacunación contra el VPH en hombres de 10 a 26 años de edad En un ECA hubo evidencia de certeza moderada de que la vacuna cuadrivalente contra el VPH, en comparación con el control, redujo la incidencia de lesiones genitales externas (control 36 por 3081 personas­año; cuadrivalente 6 por 3173 personas­año; cociente de tasas 0,16; IC del 95%: 0,07 a 0,38; 6254 personas­año) y verrugas anogenitales (control 28 por 2814 personas­año; cuadrivalente 3 por 2831 años­persona; cociente de tasas 0,11; IC del 95%: 0,03 a 0,38; 5645 años­persona). La vacuna cuadrivalente produjo más eventos adversos relacionados con el sitio de la inyección, como dolor o enrojecimiento, que el control (537 frente a 601 por 1000; cociente de riesgos [CR] 1,12; IC del 95%: 1,06 a 1,18; 3895 participantes, evidencia de certeza alta). Hubo evidencia de certeza muy baja de dos ECA acerca de eventos adversos graves con la vacuna cuadrivalente (control 12/2588; cuadrivalente 8/2574), y acerca de las muertes (control 11/2591; cuadrivalente 3/2582), debido a la imprecisión y la falta de direccionalidad. Vacuna nonavalente frente a cuadrivalente en mujeres y hombres de 9 a 26 años de edad Se incluyeron tres ECA; uno en mujeres de 9 a 15 años de edad (n = 600), uno en mujeres de 16 a 26 años de edad (n = 14 215) y uno en hombres de 16 a 26 años de edad (n = 500). El ECA en mujeres de 16 a 26 años informó de los resultados clínicos. Hubo poca o ninguna diferencia en la incidencia del resultado combinado de neoplasia epitelial de cuello de útero de grado alto, adenocarcinoma in situ o cáncer de cuello de útero entre las vacunas contra el VPH (cuadrivalente 325/6882, nonavalente 326/6871; OR 1,00; IC del 95%: 0,85 a 1,16; 13 753 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta). Los otros dos ECA no recopilaron datos sobre los resultados clínicos. Hubo un número ligeramente mayor de eventos adversos locales con la vacuna nonavalente (905 por 1000) que con la vacuna cuadrivalente (846 por 1000) (CR 1,07; IC del 95%: 1,05 a 1,08; 3 ECA, 15 863 participantes; evidencia de certeza alta). La evidencia comparativa acerca de los eventos adversos graves en los tres ECA (nonavalente 243/8234, cuadrivalente 192/7629; OR 0,60; IC del 95%: 0,14 a 2,61) fue de certeza baja, debido a la imprecisión y a la falta de direccionalidad. Vacunación contra el VPH para las personas que conviven con el VIH Siete ECA informaron sobre las vacunas contra el VPH en personas con VIH, y dos ensayos pequeños recopilaron datos sobre los resultados clínicos. Las respuestas de los anticuerpos fueron más altas después de la vacunación con la vacuna bivalente o cuadrivalente contra el VPH que con el control, y se pudo demostrar que estas respuestas se mantuvieron hasta 24 meses en niños que convivían con el VIH (evidencia de certeza baja). La evidencia acerca de los resultados clínicos y los efectos perjudiciales de las vacunas contra el VPH en las personas con VIH es muy incierta (evidencia de certeza baja a muy baja), debido a la imprecisión y a la falta de direccionalidad. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Es similar la inmunogenicidad de los calendarios de dos y tres dosis de la vacuna contra el VPH, medida con las respuestas de los anticuerpos en mujeres jóvenes. La vacuna cuadrivalente probablemente reduce las lesiones genitales externas y las verrugas anogenitales en los hombres en comparación con el control. Las vacunas nonavalentes y cuadrivalentes ofrecen una protección similar en cuanto a un resultado combinado de lesiones precancerosas o cáncer de cuello de útero, vaginal y vulvar. En los individuos que conviven con el VIH, tanto las vacunas bivalentes como las cuadrivalentes contra el VPH producen respuestas altas de los anticuerpos. Para todas las comparaciones de los calendarios alternativos de la vacuna contra el VPH, la certeza del conjunto de evidencia sobre los eventos adversos graves notificados durante los períodos de estudio fue baja o muy baja, debido a que el número de eventos fue escaso, o a que la evidencia fue indirecta, o ambos. La vigilancia posterior a la comercialización es necesaria para continuar con el control de los efectos perjudiciales que podrían estar asociados con las vacunas contra el VPH en la población, y esta evidencia se incorporará en las actualizaciones futuras de esta revisión. Se necesitan estudios observacionales a largo plazo para determinar la efectividad de los calendarios de dosis reducidas con respecto a las variables de evaluación del cáncer relacionado con el VPH, y si la adopción de estos calendarios mejora las tasas de cobertura de la vacuna.

Conservative interventions for treating functional daytime urinary incontinence in children.

BACKGROUND: In children, functional daytime urinary incontinence is the term used to describe any leakage of urine while awake that is not the result of a known underlying neurological or congenital anatomic cause (such as conditions or injuries that affect the nerves that control the bladder or problems with the way the urinary system is formed). It can result in practical difficulties for both the child and their family and can have detrimental effects on a child's well-being, education and social engagement. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of conservative interventions for treating functional daytime urinary incontinence in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains studies identified from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 11 September 2018). We also searched Chinese language bibliographic databases: Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang. No language restrictions were imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised, multi-arm studies, cross-over studies and cluster-randomised studies that included children aged between 5 and 18 years with functional daytime urinary incontinence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened records and determined the eligibility of studies for inclusion according to predefined criteria. Where data from the study were not provided, we contacted the study authors to request further information. Two review authors assessed risk of bias and processed included study data as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Where meta-analysis was possible, we applied random-effects meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method for dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: The review included 27 RCTs involving 1803 children. Of these, six were multi-arm and one was also a cross-over study. Most studies were small, with numbers randomised ranging from 16 to 202. A total of 19 studies were at high risk of bias for at least one domain. Few studies reported data suitable for pooling due to heterogeneity in interventions, outcomes and measurements.Individual conservative interventions (lifestyle, behavioural or physical) versus no treatmentTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) versus sham (placebo) TENS. More children receiving active TENS may achieve continence (risk ratio (RR) 4.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68 to 14.21; 3 studies; n = 93; low-certainty evidence).One individual conservative intervention versus another individual or combined conservative interventionPelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with urotherapy versus urotherapy alone. We are uncertain whether more children receiving PFMT with urotherapy achieve continence (RR 2.36, 95% CI 0.65 to 8.53, 95% CI 25 to 100; 3 studies; n = 91; very low-certainty evidence).Voiding education with uroflowmetry feedback and urotherapy versus urotherapy alone. Slightly more children receiving voiding education with uroflow feedback and urotherapy may achieve continence (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.45; 3 studies; n = 151; low-certainty evidence).Urotherapy with timer watch versus urotherapy alone. We are uncertain whether urotherapy plus timer watch increases the number of children achieving continence compared to urotherapy alone (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.80; 1 study; n = 58; very low-certainty evidence).Combined conservative interventions versus other combined conservative interventionsTENS and standard urotherapy versus PFMT with electromyographic biofeedback and standard urotherapy. We are uncertain whether there is any evidence of a difference between treatment groups in the proportions of children achieving continence (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.68; 1 study; n = 78; very low-certainty evidence).PFMT with electromyography biofeedback and standard urotherapy versus PFMT without feedback but with standard urotherapy. We are uncertain whether there is any evidence of a difference between treatment groups in the proportions of children achieving continence (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.52; 1 study; n = 41; very low-certainty evidence).Individual conservative interventions versus non-conservative interventions (pharmacological or invasive, combined or not with any conservative interventions)PFMT versus anticholinergics. We are uncertain whether more children receiving PFMT than anticholinergics achieve continence (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.15; equivalent to an increase from 33 to 64 per 100 children; 2 studies; n = 86; very low-certainty evidence).TENS versus anticholinergics. We are uncertain whether there was any evidence of a difference between treatment groups in the proportions of children achieving continence (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.05 to 12.50; 2 studies; n = 72; very low-certainty evidence).Combined conservative interventions versus non-conservative interventions (pharmacological or invasive, combined or not with any conservative interventions)Voiding education with uroflowmetry feedback versus anticholinergics. We are uncertain whether there was any evidence of a difference between treatment groups in the proportion of children achieving continence (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.78; 1 study; n = 64; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review found little reliable evidence that can help affected children, their carers and the clinicians working with them to make evidence-based treatment decisions. In this scenario, the clinical experience of individual clinicians and the support of carers may be the most valuable resources. More well-designed research, with well-defined interventions and consistent outcome measurement, is needed.

Interventions for treating recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed minimally invasive synthetic midurethral tape surgery in women.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is a common treatment modality for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), usually offered to women for whom conservative treatments have failed. Midurethral tapes have superseded colposuspension because cure rates are comparable and recovery time is reduced. However, some women will not be cured after midurethral tape surgery. Currently, there is no consensus on how to manage the condition in these women.This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for treating recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed minimally invasive synthetic midurethral tape surgery in women; and to summarise the principal findings of economic evaluations of these interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 9 November 2018). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in women who had recurrent stress urinary incontinence after previous minimally invasive midurethral tape surgery. We included conservative, pharmacological and surgical treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors checked the abstracts of identified studies to confirm their eligibility. We obtained full-text reports of relevant studies and contacted study authors directly for additional information where necessary. We extracted outcome data onto a standard proforma and processed them according to the guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included one study in this review. This study was later reported in an originally unplanned secondary analysis of 46 women who underwent transobturator tape for recurrent SUI after one or more previous failed operations. We were unable to use the data, as they were not presented according to the nature of the first operation.We excluded 12 studies, five because they were not randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four because previous incontinence surgery was not performed using midurethral tape. We considered a further three to be ineligible because neither the trial report nor personal communication with the trialists could confirm whether any of the participants had previously undergone surgery with tape.We had also planned to develop a brief economic commentary summarising the principal findings of relevant economic evaluations but supplementary systematic searches did not identify any such studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There were insufficient data to assess the effects of any of the different management strategies for recurrent or persistent stress incontinence after failed midurethral tape surgery. No published papers have reported exclusively on women whose first operation was a midurethral tape. Evidence from further RCTs and economic evaluations is required to address uncertainties about the effects and costs of these treatments.

Techniques of monitoring blood glucose during pregnancy for women with pre-existing diabetes.

BACKGROUND: There are a number of ways of monitoring blood glucose in women with diabetes during pregnancy, with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) recommended as a key component of the management plan. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of different techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear. This review is an update of a review that was first published in 2014 and subsequently updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (1 November 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), automated telemedicine monitoring or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also eligible for inclusion. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes a total of 12 trials (863) women (792 women with type 1 diabetes and 152 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe, the USA and Canada. Three of the 12 included studies are at low risk of bias, eight studies are at moderate risk of bias, and one study is at high risk of bias. Four trials reported that they were provided with the continuous glucose monitors free of charge or at a reduced cost by the manufacturer.Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) versus intermittent glucose monitoring, (four studies, 609 women)CGM may reduce hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and pregnancy-induced hypertension) (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.85; 2 studies, 384 women; low-quality evidence), although it should be noted that only two of the four relevant studies reported data for this composite outcome. Conversely, this did not translate into a clear reduction for pre-eclampsia (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.08; 4 studies, 609 women, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no clear reduction in caesarean section (average RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.18; 3 studies, 427 women; I2 = 41%; moderate-quality evidence) or large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.26; 3 studies, 421 women; I2 = 70%; low-quality evidence) with CGM. There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.05 to 12.61, 71 infants, 1 study; low-quality evidence), or mortality or morbidity composite (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.06; 1 study, 200 women) as the evidence was based on single studies of low quality. CGM appears to reduce neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93; 3 studies, 428 infants). Neurosensory disability was not reported.Other methods of glucose monitoringFor the following five comparisons, self-monitoring versus a different type of self-monitoring (two studies, 43 women); self-monitoring at home versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women), pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women), automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women), and constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women), it is uncertain whether any of the interventions has any impact on any of our GRADE outcomes (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, caesarean section, large-for-gestational age) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low. This was due to evidence largely being derived from single trials, with design limitations and limitations with imprecision (wide CIs, small sample sizes, and few events). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Other important outcomes, such as neurosensory disability, were not reported in any of these comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Two new studies (406 women) have been incorporated to one of the comparisons for this update. Although the evidence suggests that CGM in comparison to intermittent glucose monitoring may reduce hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, this did not translate into a clear reduction for pre-eclampsia, and so this result should be viewed with caution. No differences were observed for other primary outcomes for this comparison. The evidence base for the effectiveness of other monitoring techniques analysed in the other five comparisons is weak and based on mainly single studies with very low-quality evidence. Additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of other glucose monitoring techniques and to confirm the effectiveness of CGM.

User perspectives, preferences and priorities relating to products for managing bladder and bowel dysfunctions.

A great many people of all ages around the world cannot fully control their bladder or bowel, or both. Either in the short or long term, they rely upon products and devices to manage the emptying of their bladders and bowels and to collect, absorb and contain leaked urine or faeces. The incontinence product market is large and growing, and ongoing developments in materials and technologies should lead to improvements in these products and devices. Engineers and designers who work in this field - or who plan to do so - need to recognise the breadth of factors that affect the effectiveness and acceptability of products. The primary functions of products for managing bladder and bowel dysfunctions are the collection and containment of urine or faeces - and the associated engineering and design challenges may be considered in terms of flow rates and volumes and methods of acquisition and containment. But products will fail if they do not take into account other factors, some of which relate less directly to these primary functions and some not at all. This article aims to highlight the product characteristics that are most important to the people who use them, and areas where user-centred innovation and development may lead to improvements.

Ribavirin for treating Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever.

BACKGROUND: Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is a tick-borne disease that occurs in parts of Asia, Europe and Africa. Since 2000 the infection has caused epidemics in Turkey, Iran, Russia, Uganda and Pakistan. Good-quality general supportive medical care helps reduce mortality. There is uncertainty and controversy about treating CCHF with the antiviral drug ribavirin. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of ribavirin for treating people with Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (OVID); Science Citation Index-Expanded, Social Sciences Citation index, conference proceedings (Web of Science); and CINAHL (EBSCOHost). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for trials in progress. We conducted all searches up to 16 October 2017. We also contacted experts in the field and obtained further studies from these sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: We evaluated studies assessing the use of ribavirin in people with suspected or confirmed Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever. We included randomised control trials (RCTs); non-randomised studies (NRSs) that included more than 10 participants designed as cohort studies with comparators; and case-control studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed eligibility, risk of bias, and extracted data. For non-randomized studies we used the ROBINS-I tool to assess risk of bias. The main effects analysis included all studies where we judged the risk of bias to be low, moderate or high. We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs), and used meta-analyses where appropriate. We carried out a subsidiary appraisal and analysis of studies with critical risk of bias for the primary outcome, as these are often cited to support using ribavirin. MAIN RESULTS: For the main effects analysis, five studies met our inclusion criteria: one RCT with 136 participants and four non-randomized studies with 612 participants. We excluded 18 non-randomized studies with critical risk of bias, where none had attempted to control for confounding.We do not know if ribavirin reduces mortality (1 RCT; RR 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 4.32; 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence; 3 non-randomized studies; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.28; 549 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if ribavirin reduces the length of stay in hospital (1 RCT: mean difference (MD) 0.70 days, 95% CI -0.39 to 1.79; 136 participants; and 1 non-randomized study: MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.70 to 1.10; 50 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if it reduces the risk of patients needing platelet transfusions (1 RCT: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.96; 136 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For adverse effects (including haemolytic anaemia and a need to discontinue treatment), we do not know whether there is an increased risk with ribavirin in people with CCHF as data are insufficient.We do not know if adding ribavirin to early supportive care improves outcomes. One non-randomized study assessed mortality in people receiving ribavirin and supportive care within four days or less from symptom onset compared to after four days since symptom onset: mortality was lower in the group receiving early supportive care and ribavirin, but it is not possible to distinguish between the effects of ribavirin and early supportive medical care alone.In the subsidiary analysis, 18 studies compared people receiving ribavirin with those not receiving ribavirin. All had a critical risk of bias due to confounding, reflected in the mortality point estimates favouring ribavirin. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We do not know if ribavirin is effective for treating Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever. Non-randomized studies are often cited as evidence of an effect, but the risk of bias in these studies is high.

Techniques of monitoring blood glucose during pregnancy for women with pre-existing diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) is recommended as a key component of the management plan for diabetes therapy during pregnancy. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of various techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes at total of 10 trials (538) women (468 women with type 1 diabetes and 70 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe and the USA. Five of the 10 included studies were at moderate risk of bias, four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias, and one study was at high risk of bias. The trials are too small to show differences in important outcomes such as macrosomia, preterm birth, miscarriage or death of baby. Almost all the reported GRADE outcomes were assessed as being very low-quality evidence. This was due to design limitations in the studies, wide confidence intervals, small sample sizes, and few events. In addition, there was high heterogeneity for some outcomes.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any clear advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary and secondary outcomes. Many important outcomes were not reported.1. Self-monitoring versus standard care (two studies, 43 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.49; one study, 28 women) or glycaemic control (both very low-quality), and not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, neurosensory disability, and preterm birth were not reported in either study.2. Self-monitoring versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women): there was no clear difference for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and hypertension) (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.52 to 35.16; very low-quality: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.22; very low-quality). There was no clear difference in caesarean section or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (both very low quality), and the sample size was too small to assess perinatal mortality (very low-quality). Large-for-gestational age, mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.3. Pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.28; very low-quality), large-for-gestational age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.85; very low-quality) or glycaemic control (very low-quality). The results for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality are not meaningful because these outcomes were too rare to show differences in a small sample (all very low-quality). The study did not report the outcomes mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability or preterm birth.4. Automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48; one study, 32 women; very low-quality), and mortality or morbidity composite in the one study that reported these outcomes. There were no clear differences for glycaemic control (very low-quality). No studies reported hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), neurosensory disability or preterm birth.5.CGM versus intermittent monitoring (two studies, 225 women): there was no clear difference for pre-eclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59; low-quality), caesarean section (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = 62%; very low-quality) and large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.92; I² = 82%; very low-quality). Glycaemic control indicated by mean maternal HbA1c was lower for women in the continuous monitoring group (mean difference (MD) -0.60 %, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; one study, 71 women; moderate-quality). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and there were no clear differences for preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (low-quality). Mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.6. Constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.79; very low-quality), glycaemic control (mean blood glucose in the 3rd trimester) (MD -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.72; very low-quality) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46; very low-quality). Other primary (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), mortality or morbidity composite, and neurosensory disability) or GRADE outcomes (preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation) were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.

Understanding variations in patient screening and recruitment in a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial: a vignette-based study.

BACKGROUND: The INVESTIGATE-I study was designed to inform a future definitive randomised trial of invasive urodynamic testing, compared to basic clinical assessment with noninvasive tests prior to surgical treatment, in women with stress urinary incontinence or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence. In a pilot randomised controlled trial, women from seven participating sites were screened, consented and randomised. Overall, 771 patients were identified from clinic notes and correspondence as being potential recruits and were sent the Patient Information Leaflet. Of those screened, 284 were deemed eligible, giving an overall 'screen positive' rate of 37 %. The numbers screened at individual centres varied between 14 and 399; the 'screen positive' rate varied between 22 and 79 % and the percentage of eligible women recruited varied between 55 and 100 %. The aim of this additional substudy was to explore why 'screen positive' rates may have varied so widely between apparently similar sites. RESULTS: All 11 trial staff involved in screening in the seven recruiting sites were asked to evaluate a series of 20 identical vignettes, mainly based on actual general practitioner referral letters. Of the vignettes, 16 mentioned one or more definite inclusion criteria; the remainder had possible inclusions. Four had definite exclusions; 12 had possible exclusions. Free-text comments were sought to clarify the screeners' decisions. For six vignettes everyone agreed that the patient was eligible; for one all agreed she was not eligible; the breakdown for the remainder was mixed. Free-text comments illuminated uncertainties that may have led to variability in judging potential eligibility. CONCLUSIONS: Variability in judgements about potential trial eligibility highlights the importance of explicit and objective inclusion and exclusion criteria, and of agreed strategies for making judgements when information is missing. During the development and planning of trials, vignettes might be a valuable tool for training those involved in screening and recruiting patients, for identifying potential problems and ensuring greater consistency in the application of eligibility criteria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISTCTN registry: ISRCTN71327395 , registered on 7 June 2010.

A New Scale for Assessing the Severity of Uncomplicated Diaper Dermatitis in Infants: Development and Validation.

BACKGROUND: One methodologic challenge in conducting research relating to diaper dermatitis (DD) is the absence of a reliable, objective, validated scale for assessing severity. The aim of this study was to develop and validate such a scale. METHODS: Scale development was based on experience of DD assessment and clinical and photographic data collected during the early stages of a randomized controlled trial of two DD treatments. The severity score is the sum of scores of four domains: severity of erythema and irritation, area with any DD, papules or pustules, and open skin. Possible scores range from 0 (clear skin) to 6 (extensive DD including intense erythema, papules or pustules, and open skin with damage to the dermis). Assessors used the scale to attribute severity scores using high-definition photographs of infants and babies with DD. Interrater reliability (IRR), internal consistency, and test-retest reliability were considered using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Cronbach's α, and Cohen κ statistics. RESULTS: IRR was very good between assessors familiar with the scale (ICC = 0.949, p < 0.001) and between assessors unfamiliar with the scale (ICC = 0.850, p < 0.001). Test-retest reliability at 2 weeks was good (κ = 0.603, p < 0.001). Cronbach's α for internal consistency was 0.702. Collation of photographs according to severity score revealed a visible continuum of DD severity, suggesting good construct validity. CONCLUSION: The newly developed scale appears to be easy to use, reliable, and effective in detecting increasing or lessening DD severity.

A mixed methods study to assess the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of invasive urodynamic testing versus clinical assessment and non-invasive tests prior to surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women: the INVESTIGATE-I study.

BACKGROUND: The position of invasive urodynamic testing (IUT) in diagnostic pathways for urinary incontinence is unclear, and systematic reviews have called for further trials evaluating clinical utility. The objective of this study was to inform the decision whether to proceed to a definitive randomised trial of IUT compared to clinical assessment with non-invasive tests, prior to surgery in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence (MUI). METHODS: A mixed methods study comprising a pragmatic multicentre randomised pilot trial, a qualitative face-to face interview study with patients eligible for the trial, an exploratory economic evaluation including value of information study, a survey of clinicians' views about IUT, and qualitative telephone interviews with purposively sampled survey respondents. Only the first and second of these elements are reported here. Trial participants were randomised to either clinical assessment with non-invasive tests (control arm) or clinical assessment with non-invasive tests plus IUT (intervention arm). The main outcome measures of these feasibility studies were confirmation that units can identify and recruit eligible women, acceptability of investigation strategies and data collection tools, and acquisition of outcome data to determine the sample size for a definitive trial. The primary outcome proposed for a definitive trial was ICIQ-FLUTS (total score) 6 months after surgery or the start of nonsurgical treatment. RESULTS: Of 284 eligible women, 222 (78%) were recruited, 165/219 (75%) returned questionnaires at baseline, and 125/200 returned them (63%) at follow-up. Most women underwent surgery; management plans were changed in 19 (19%) participants following IUT. Participants interviewed were positive about the trial and the associated documentation. CONCLUSIONS: All elements of a definitive trial were rehearsed. Such a trial would require between 232 and 922 participants, depending on the target difference in the primary outcome. We identified possible modifications to our protocol for application in a definitive trial including clarity over inclusion/exclusions, screening processes, reduction in secondary outcomes, and modification to patient questionnaire booklets and bladder diaries. A definitive trial of IUT versus clinical assessment prior to surgery for SUI or stress predominant MUI is feasible and remains relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN 71327395, registered 7 June 2010.

INVESTIGATE-I (INVasive Evaluation before Surgical Treatment of Incontinence Gives Added Therapeutic Effect?): a mixed-methods study to assess the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial of invasive urodynamic testing prior to surgery for stress urinary incontinence in women.

BACKGROUND: The position of invasive urodynamic testing in the diagnostic pathway for urinary incontinence (UI) is unclear. Systematic reviews have called for further trials evaluating clinical utility, although a preliminary feasibility study was considered appropriate. OBJECTIVES: To inform the decision whether or not to proceed to a definitive randomised trial of invasive urodynamic testing compared with clinical assessment with non-invasive tests, prior to surgery in women with stress UI (SUI) or stress predominant mixed UI (MUI). DESIGN: A mixed-methods study comprising a pragmatic multicentre randomised pilot trial; economic evaluation; survey of clinicians' views about invasive urodynamic testing; qualitative interviews with clinicians and trial participants. SETTING: Urogynaecology, female urology and general gynaecology units in Newcastle, Leicester, Swansea, Sheffield, Northumberland, Gateshead and South Tees. PARTICIPANTS: Trial recruits were women with SUI or stress predominant MUI who were considering surgery after unsuccessful conservative treatment. Relevant clinicians completed two online surveys. Subsets of survey respondents and trial participants took part in separate qualitative interview studies. INTERVENTIONS: Pilot trial participants were randomised to undergo clinical assessment with non-invasive tests (control arm); or assessment as controls, plus invasive urodynamic testing (intervention arm). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Confirmation that units can identify and recruit eligible women; acceptability of investigation strategies and data collection tools; acquisition of outcome data to determine the sample size for a definitive trial. The proposed primary outcome for the definitive trial was International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire (ICIQ) Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-FLUTS) (total score) 6 months after surgery or the start of non-surgical treatment; secondary outcomes included: ICIQ-FLUTS (subscales); ICIQ Urinary Incontinence Short Form; ICIQ Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life; Urogenital Distress Inventory; EuroQol-5D; costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost per QALY, Short Form 12; 3-day bladder diary. RESULTS: Of 284 eligible women, 222 (78%) were recruited; 165/219 (75%) returned questionnaires at baseline and 125/200 (63%) who were sent questionnaires at follow-up. There were few missing data items in returned questionnaires, with individual outcome scales calculable for 81%-94%. Most women underwent surgery; management plans were changed in 19 (19%) participants following invasive urodynamic testing. Participant Costs Questionnaires were returned by 53% 6 months after treatment; complete data to undertake cost-utility analysis were available in 27% (intervention) and 47% (control). While insufficient to recommend changes in practice, the results suggest further research would be valuable. All clinicians responding to the survey had access to invasive urodynamic testing, and most saw it as essential prior to surgery in women with SUI with or without other symptoms; nevertheless, 70% considered the research question underlying INVESTIGATE important and most were willing to randomise patients in a definitive trial. Participants interviewed were positive about the trial and associated documentation; the desire of some women to avoid invasive urodynamic testing contrasted with opinions expressed by clinicians through both survey and interview responses. CONCLUSIONS: All elements of a definitive trial and economic evaluation were rehearsed; several areas for protocol modification were identified. Such a trial would require to 400-900 participants, depending on the difference in primary outcome sought. FUTURE WORK: A definitive trial of invasive urodynamic testing versus clinical assessment prior to surgery for SUI or stress predominant MUI should be undertaken. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71327395. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Topical petrolatum gel alone versus topical silver sulfadiazine with standard gauze dressings for the treatment of superficial partial thickness burns in adults: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-extensive superficial partial thickness burns constitute a major proportion of burns. Conventional treatment involves regular changing of absorptive dressings including the application of a topical antimicrobial, commonly silver sulfadiazine. A systematic review has found insufficient evidence to support or refute such antimicrobial prophylaxis. Another review compared silver sulfadiazine dressings with other occlusive and non-antimicrobial dressings and found insufficient evidence to guide practice. Other research has suggested that dressings with petrolatum gel are as effective as silver sulfadiazine. METHODS: Single-center, randomized, controlled parallel group trial comparing conventional silver sulfadiazine dressings with treatment with petrolatum gel alone. Consenting adults 18-45 years old with superficial partial thickness burns≤10% total body surface area seen within 24h of the injury were randomized to daily dressing either with petrolatum gel without top dressings or conventional silver sulfadiazine treatment with gauze dressings. Primary outcomes were blinded assessment of time to complete re-epithelialization, wound infection or allergic contact dermatitis. Secondary outcomes included assessment of ease, time and pain of dressing changes. RESULTS: 26 patients were randomized to petrolatum and 24 to silver sulfadiazine dressings. Follow up data available for 19 in each group. Mean time to re-epithelialization was 6.2 days (SD 2.8) in the petrolatum group and 7.8 days (SD 2.1) in the silver sulfadiazine group (p=0.050). No wound infection or dermatitis was observed in either group. Scores for adherence to wound, ease of dressing removal and time required to change dressings were significantly better in the petrolatum treatment arm (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Petrolatum gel without top dressings may be at least as effective as silver sulfadiazine gauze dressings with regard to time to re-epithelialization, and incidence of infection and allergic contact dermatitis. Petrolatum gel appears to be an effective, affordable and widely available alternative in the treatment of minor superficial partial thickness burns in adults.

Techniques of monitoring blood glucose during pregnancy for women with pre-existing diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood glucose is recommended as a key component of the management plan for diabetes therapy during pregnancy. No existing systematic reviews consider the benefits/effectiveness of various techniques of blood glucose monitoring on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. The effectiveness of the various monitoring techniques is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 August 2013), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including self blood glucose monitoring, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (Type 1 or Type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. Quasi-RCTs and RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: The search of the Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register identified 21 trial reports. Following application of eligibility criteria, nine trials were included in this review. The included trials involved a total of 506 women (436 women with Type 1 diabetes and 70 women with Type 2 diabetes). All trials originated from European countries and the USA. None of the studies included women with gestational diabetes. Five of the nine included studies were at moderate risk of bias and four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias. Primary outcomes were maternal glycaemic control (fasting blood glucose and HbA1c) and infant birthweight or macrosomia.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. The following comparisons were included in the review: (1) self-monitoring versus standard care, (2) self-monitoring versus hospitalisation, (3) pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring, (4) automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system, (5) CGM versus intermittent monitoring and (6) constant CGM versus intermittent CGM.Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any significant advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary outcomes (maternal glycaemic control and infant birthweight) and secondary outcomes such as gestational age at birth or preterm birth, frequency of neonatal hypoglycaemia, death of baby including stillbirth, and neonatal intensive care admission. Primary outcome data on macrosomia were reported by one trial but at a different cut-off value than that pre-specified for the review. Secondary outcomes such as shoulder dystocia, major and minor anomalies were not reported by any of the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.