Early Mobilization in Critically Ill Children: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize how early mobilization is defined in the published literature and describe the evidence on safety and efficacy on early mobilization in critically ill children. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic search of randomized and nonrandomized studies assessing early mobilization-based physical therapy in critically ill children under 18 years of age in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, the National Institutes of Health, Evidence in Pediatric Intensive Care Collaborative, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and the Mobilization-Network. We extracted data to identify the types of mobility-based interventions and definitions for early, as well as barriers, feasibility, adverse events, and efficacy outcomes (mortality, morbidities, and length of stay). RESULTS: Of 1199 titles found, we included 11 studies (2 pilot trials and 9 observational studies) and 1 clinical practice guideline in the analyses. Neurodevelopmentally appropriate increasing mobility levels have been described for critically ill children, and "early" mobilization was defined as either a range (within 48-72 hours) from admission to the pediatric intensive care unit or when clinical safety criteria are met. Current evidence suggests that early mobilization is safe and feasible and institutional practice guidelines significantly increase the frequency of rehabilitation consults, improve the proportion of patients who receive early mobilization, and reduce the time to mobilization. However, there were inconsistencies in populations and interventions across studies, and imprecision and risk of bias in included studies that precluded us from pooling data to evaluate the efficacy outcomes of early mobilization. CONCLUSIONS: The definition of early mobilization varies, but seems to be feasible and safe in critically ill children. The efficacy for early mobilization in this population is yet undetermined because of the low certainty of the evidence available.

A scoping review and survey provides the rationale, perceptions, and preferences for the integration of randomized and nonrandomized studies in evidence syntheses and GRADE assessments.

OBJECTIVES: To review the literature and obtain preferences and perceptions from experts regarding the role of randomized studies (RSs) and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) in systematic reviews of intervention effects. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Scoping review and survey of experts. Using levels of certainty developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group, experts expressed their preferences about the use of RS and NRS in health syntheses. RESULTS: Of 189 respondents, 123 had the expertise required to answer the questionnaire; 116 provided their extent of agreement with approaches to use NRS with RS. Most respondents would include NRS when RS was unfeasible (83.6%) or unethical (71.5%) and a majority to maximize the body of evidence (66.3%), compare results in NRS and RS (53.5%) and to identify subgroups (51.7%). Sizable minorities would include NRS and RS to address the effect of randomization (29.5%) or because the question being addressed was a public-health intervention (36.5%). In summary of findings tables, most respondents would include both bodies of evidence-in two rows in the same table-when RS provided moderate, low, or very-low certainty evidence; even when RS provided high certainty evidence, a sizable minority (25%) would still present results from both bodies of evidence. Very few (3.6%) would, under realistic circumstances, pool RS and NRS results. CONCLUSIONS: Most experts would include both RS and NRS in the same review under a wide variety of circumstances, but almost all would present results of two bodies of evidence separately.

Probiotics for the prevention of allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Allergic diseases are considered a health burden because of their high and constantly increasing prevalence, high direct and indirect costs, and undesirable effects on quality of life. Probiotics have been suggested as an intervention to prevent allergic diseases. OBJECTIVE: We sought to synthesize the evidence supporting use of probiotics for the prevention of allergies and inform World Allergy Organization guidelines on probiotic use. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized trials assessing the effects of any probiotic administered to pregnant women, breast-feeding mothers, and/or infants. RESULTS: Of 2403 articles published until December 2014 identified in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase, 29 studies fulfilled a priori specified inclusion criteria for the analyses. Probiotics reduced the risk of eczema when used by women during the last trimester of pregnancy (relative risk [RR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.84), when used by breast-feeding mothers (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.69), or when given to infants (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.94). Evidence did not support an effect on other allergies, nutrition status, or incidence of adverse effects. The certainty in the evidence according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Evaluation approach is low or very low because of the risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision of results, and indirectness of available research. CONCLUSION: Probiotics used by pregnant women or breast-feeding mothers and/or given to infants reduced the risk of eczema in infants; however, the certainty in the evidence is low. No effect was observed for the prevention of other allergic conditions.

Corticosteroids for neurocysticercosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Neurocysticercosis is an infection of the central nervous system by the larval stage of Taenia solium. It is a major cause of epileptic seizures in low- and middle-income countries. Corticosteroids are frequently used to reduce inflammation and perilesional edema. We aimed to evaluate their efficacy for reducing the rate of seizures and lesion persistence in imaging studies. METHODS: We searched randomized controlled trials in Medline, Central, EMBASE, LILACS, and the gray literature without language restrictions. We assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. The main outcomes included seizure recurrence and lesion persistence on imaging studies at 6-12 months of follow-up. Risk ratios (RR) were used for evaluating the main outcomes. RESULTS: Thirteen studies involving 1373 participants were included. The quality of the evidence was deemed low to very low. Corticosteroids alone versus placebo/no drug (five trials) reduced the rate of seizure recurrence at 6-12 months (RR 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.77; 426 participants) and the persistence of lesions in imaging studies (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43-0.92; 417 participants). No differences were noted in other comparisons, including the use of corticosteroids and albendazole combined. Corticosteroids plus albendazole increased the risk of abdominal pain, rash, and headaches (odds ratio 8.73, 95% CI 2.09-36.5; 116 participants, one trial). CONCLUSIONS: Although the evidence suggest corticosteroids can reduce the rate of seizure recurrence and speed up resolution of lesions at 6-12 months of follow-up, there remains uncertainty on the effect estimate due to a high risk of methodological and publication bias. More adequately performed randomized trials that evaluate the use of anthelmintics, corticosteroids, and both combined against placebo are needed.