Left atrial volume index: A predictor of atrial fibrillation recurrence following direct current cardioversion - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the clinical relevance of echocardiographically measured left atrial (LA) size to predict the recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) after direct current cardioversion (DCCV). A search was performed on Medline (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in Cochrane Library, Wiley and Web of Science (Clarivate) to identify relevant studies. Amongst the initial 4066 citations identified, 31 fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the data analysis incorporating 2725 patients with a mean follow-up period of 6.5 months. The weighted mean left atrial volume index (LAVI) was 40.56 ml/m2 (95 %CI:37.24-43.88) in the sinus rhythm (SR) maintenance group versus 48.69 ml/m2 (95 % CI: 44.42-52.97) in the AF recurrence group with P value of < 0.001, left atrial diameter (LAD) was 42.06 mm (95 %CI: 41.08-43.05) in the SR maintenance group versus 45.13 mm (95 %CI: 44.09-46.16) in the AF recurrence group, P value < 0.001. Effect size analysis of LAVI showed that each unit increase in LAVI resulted in an increase in the risk of AF recurrence by 6 % (95 % CI: 3 %-10 %). Age and AF duration were also statistically significant between the two groups however comorbidities, use of beta blockers or amiodarone were not significantly different. This meta-analysis shows that AF duration, LAVI, LAD and age predict the risk of recurrence of atrial fibrillation post electrical cardioversion with LAVI being the most clinically relevant echocardiographic feature.

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although their effectiveness increases in people with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated. This is an update of a review first published in 2010, and updated in 2013, 2016, and 2021. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing clinical relapse (i.e. recurrence of symptoms after initial resolution); and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2023, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Elsevier, and Web of Science (Clarivate) up to 19 March 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics, and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, or complications and/or adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias in the included studies according to the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes. We reported the intention-to-treat analysis, and also performed an analysis of evaluable participants to explore the robustness of the intention-to-treat results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 trials reported in 18 publications (5839 randomised participants): six trials compared penicillin with cephalosporins; six compared penicillin with macrolides; three compared penicillin with carbacephem; one compared penicillin with sulphonamides; one compared clindamycin with ampicillin; and one compared azithromycin with amoxicillin in children. All participants had confirmed acute GABHS tonsillopharyngitis, and ages ranged from one month to 80 years. Nine trials included only, or predominantly, children. Most trials were conducted in an outpatient setting. Reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding was poor in all trials. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to lack of (or poor reporting of) randomisation or blinding, or both, heterogeneity, and wide confidence intervals. Cephalosporins versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference in symptom resolution (at 2 to 15 days) for cephalosporins versus penicillin (odds ratio (OR) for absence of symptom resolution 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12; 5 trials, 2018 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results of the sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants differed (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 5 trials, 1660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Based on an analysis of evaluable participants, we are uncertain if clinical relapse may be lower for cephalosporins compared with penicillin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; 4 trials, 1386 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence showed no difference in reported adverse events. Macrolides versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference between macrolides and penicillin for resolution of symptoms (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; 6 trials, 1728 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants resulted in an OR of 0.79 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.09; 6 trials, 1159 participants). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be different (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.03; 6 trials, 802 participants; low-certainty evidence). Children treated with macrolides seemed to experience more adverse events than those treated with penicillin (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.15; 1 trial, 489 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the test for subgroup differences between children and adults was not significant. Azithromycin versus amoxicillin Based on one unpublished trial in children, we are uncertain if resolution of symptoms is better with azithromycin in a single dose versus amoxicillin for 10 days (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; 1 trial, 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis for per-protocol analysis resulted in an OR of 0.29 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; 1 trial, 482 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain if there was a difference in relapse between groups (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82; 1 trial, 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were more common with azithromycin compared to amoxicillin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.99; 1 trial, 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Carbacephem versus penicillin There is low-certainty evidence that compared with penicillin, carbacephem may provide better symptom resolution post-treatment in adults and children (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14.3; 3 trials, 795 participants). Studies did not report on long-term complications, so it was unclear if any class of antibiotics was better at preventing serious but rare complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if there are clinically relevant differences in symptom resolution when comparing cephalosporins and macrolides with penicillin in the treatment of GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Low-certainty evidence in children suggests that carbacephem may be more effective than penicillin for symptom resolution. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the other comparisons in this review. Data on complications were too scarce to draw conclusions. Antibiotics have a limited effect in the treatment of GABHS pharyngitis and the results do not demonstrate that other antibiotics are more effective than penicillin. In the context of antimicrobial stewardship, penicillin can be used if treatment with an antibiotic is indicated. All studies were conducted in high-income countries with a low risk of streptococcal complications, so there is a need for trials in low-income countries and disadvantaged populations, where the risk of complications remains high.

Patient-mediated interventions in hospital: A systematic review.

AIMS: To describe the characteristics of hospital-based, patient-mediated interventions and their impact on patient, clinician and organization outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Health literature databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE) were searched in August 2021. Backward and forward citation searching was conducted. REVIEW METHODS: Studies investigating patient-mediated interventions, targeted at adult hospitalized patients were eligible. Data were extracted related to study and intervention characteristics. Narrative synthesis was used to understand intervention impact on patient, clinician and organization outcomes (as per a framework). Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies, reporting 18 interventions, were included. Twelve interventions prompted patients to report health information about their own health/needs/concerns and six interventions encouraged patients to provide feedback about clinical practice. Across all interventions, there was evidence that patients used patient-mediated interventions and that they may improve patient communication. Healthcare professional outcomes were mixed for actual/intended use, acceptability and usefulness of interventions; yet there was some evidence of healthcare professional behaviour change. Interventions that encouraged patients to report health information about their own health/needs/concerns appeared more successful than other types of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that hospital-based patient-mediated interventions may influence patient communication and healthcare professional behaviour. Patient-mediated interventions that encourage patients to report patient data before a clinical encounter may be more impactful than interventions that encourage patient feedback during or post-encounter. IMPACT: To date, most patient-mediated intervention research has been conducted in primary care settings; we uncovered the types of patient-mediated interventions that have been trialled in hospitals. We found that patient communication and healthcare professional behaviour may be influenced by these patient-mediated interventions. Future researchers could explore the suitability and effectiveness of a wider range of hospital-based patient-mediated interventions. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: There was no funding to remunerate a patient/member of the public for this review.

Effects of Cannabis in Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The legalization of cannabis in many countries has allowed many Parkinson's disease (PD) patients to turn to cannabis as a treatment. As such there is a growing interest from the PD community to be properly guided by evidence regarding potential treatment benefits of cannabis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compile the best available evidence to help guide patients and their family, clinicians and researchers make informed decisions. A systematic search of the literature was conducted in June 2021. Five randomized controlled studies and eighteen non-randomized studies investigated cannabis treatment in PD patients. No compelling evidence was found to recommend the use of cannabis in PD patients. However, a potential benefit was identified with respect to alleviation of PD related tremor, anxiety, pain, improvement of sleep quality and quality of life. Given the relative paucity of well-designed randomized studies, there is an identified need for further investigation, particularly in these areas.

Effects of cannabinoids in Parkinson's disease animal models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: Cannabis has been proposed as a potential treatment for Parkinson's disease (PD) due to its neuroprotective benefits. However, there has been no rigorous review of preclinical studies to evaluate any potential treatment effect. This systematic review was undertaken to provide evidence in support or against a treatment effect of cannabinoids in animal models of PD. Methods: Databases were searched for any controlled comparative studies that assessed the effects of any cannabinoid, cannabinoid-based treatment or endocannabinoid transport blocker on behavioural symptoms in PD animal models. Results: A total of 41 studies were identified to have met the criteria for this review. 14 of these studies were included in meta-analyses of rotarod, pole and open field tests. Meta-analysis of rotarod tests showed a weighted mean difference of 31.63 s for cannabinoid-treated group compared with control. Meta-analysis of pole tests also showed a positive treatment effect, evidenced by a weighted mean difference of -1.51 s for cannabinoid treat group compared with control. However, meta-analysis of open field test demonstrated a standardised mean difference of only 0.36 indicating no benefit. Conclusion: This review demonstrates cannabinoid treatment effects in alleviating motor symptoms of PD animal models and supports the conduct of clinical trials of cannabis in PD population. However, there is no guarantee of successful clinical translation of this outcome because of the many variables that might have affected the results, such as the prevalent unclear and high risk of bias, the different study methods, PD animal models and cannabinoids used.

A Comparison of Voice and Psychotherapeutic Treatments for Adults With Functional Voice Disorders: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of traditional voice therapy and cognitive therapy on the voice and client-wellbeing outcomes in adults with functional voice disorders (FVD). METHODS: A systematic review of English articles was conducted using Medline (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (Ebsco), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsychInfo (Ebsco) and Speechbite from inception to current date. Additional studies were identified through bibliographies and authors were contacted when further information was required from an article. All study designs were included with pretest/posttest outcome measures related to voice. Independent extraction of studies was completed by three authors using predefined data fields and quality assessment tools. RESULTS: Outcomes of 23 studies (2 RCTs and 21 cohort or case studies) are summarised using a narrative style due to heterogeneity of interventions and outcome scales used. Overall research quality of included studies was low, with many cohort and case studies lacking controls, blinding and robust outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: There are some benefits to pairing cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with traditional voice therapy for FVD including improved voice quality, psychosocial wellbeing and prevention of relapse. It is feasible to train speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in CBT-enhanced voice therapy. Further high-quality research is needed, however, to guide the clinical implementation of CBT for the management of FVD.

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although their effectiveness increases in people with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated. This is an update of a review first published in 2010, and updated in 2013, 2016, and 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing clinical relapse (i.e. recurrence of symptoms after initial resolution); and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 3 September 2020: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946), Embase Elsevier (from 1974), and Web of Science Thomson Reuters (from 2010). We also searched clinical trial registers on 3 September 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics, and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, or complications and/or adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies according to the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence for the outcomes. We have reported the intention-to-treat analysis, and also performed an analysis of evaluable participants to explore the robustness of the intention-to-treat results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 trials reported in 18 publications (5839 randomised participants): six trials compared penicillin with cephalosporins; six compared penicillin with macrolides; three compared penicillin with carbacephem; one compared penicillin with sulphonamides; one compared clindamycin with ampicillin; and one compared azithromycin with amoxicillin in children. All participants had confirmed acute GABHS tonsillopharyngitis, and ages ranged from one month to 80 years. Nine trials included only, or predominantly, children. Most trials were conducted in an outpatient setting. Reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding was poor in all trials. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to lack of (or poor reporting of) randomisation or blinding, or both; heterogeneity; and wide confidence intervals. Cephalosporins versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference in symptom resolution (at 2 to 15 days) for cephalosporins versus penicillin (odds ratio (OR) for absence of symptom resolution 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.12; 5 trials; 2018 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results of the sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants differed (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; 5 trials; 1660 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be lower for cephalosporins compared with penicillin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 50; 4 trials; 1386 participants; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence showed no difference in reported adverse events. Macrolides versus penicillin We are uncertain if there is a difference between macrolides and penicillin for resolution of symptoms (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.35; 6 trials; 1728 participants; low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis of evaluable participants resulted in an OR of 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.09; 6 trials; 1159 participants). We are uncertain if clinical relapse may be different (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.03; 6 trials; 802 participants; low-certainty evidence).  Azithromycin versus amoxicillin Based on one unpublished trial in children, we are uncertain if resolution of symptoms is better with azithromycin in a single dose versus amoxicillin for 10 days (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; 1 trial; 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis for per-protocol analysis resulted in an OR of 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; 1 trial; 482 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain if there was a difference in relapse between groups (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82; 1 trial; 422 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were more common with azithromycin compared to amoxicillin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.99; 1 trial; 673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Carbacephem versus penicillin There is low-certainty evidence that compared with penicillin, carbacephem may provide better symptom resolution post-treatment in adults and children (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14.3; 3 trials; 795 participants). Studies did not report on long-term complications, so it was unclear if any class of antibiotics was better in preventing serious but rare complications.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if there are clinically relevant differences in symptom resolution when comparing cephalosporins and macrolides with penicillin in the treatment of GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Low-certainty evidence in children suggests that carbacephem may be more effective than penicillin for symptom resolution. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the other comparisons in this review. Data on complications were too scarce to draw conclusions. These results do not demonstrate that other antibiotics are more effective than penicillin in the treatment of GABHS pharyngitis. All studies were conducted in high-income countries with a low risk of streptococcal complications, so there is a need for trials in low-income countries and Aboriginal communities, where the risk of complications remains high.

Oral feeding for infants and children receiving nasal continuous positive airway pressure and high flow nasal cannula: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether introduction of oral feeding for infants and children receiving nasal continuous positive airway pressure (nCPAP) or high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) respiratory support facilitates achievement of full oral feeding without adverse effects, compared to no oral feeding (NPO; nil per oral) on CPAP or HFNC. METHODS: A protocol was lodged with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and AustHealth from database inception to 10th June 2020. Study population included children (preterm to < 18 years) on nCPAP or HFNC who were orally feeding. Primary outcomes included full or partial oral feeding and oropharyngeal aspiration. Secondary outcomes examined adverse events including clinical signs of aspiration, aspiration pneumonia and deterioration in respiratory status. RESULTS: The search retrieved 1684 studies following duplicate removal. Title and abstract screening identified 70 studies for full text screening and of these, 16 were included in the review for data extraction. Methods of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) included nCPAP (n = 6), nCPAP and HFNC (n = 5) and HFNC (n = 5). A metanalysis was not possible as respiratory modes and cohorts were not comparable. Eleven studies reported on adverse events. Oral feeding safety was predominantly based on retrospective data from chart entries and clinical signs, with only one study using an instrumental swallow evaluation (VFSS) to determine aspiration status. CONCLUSIONS: Findings are insufficient to conclude whether commencing oral feeding whilst on nCPAP or HFNC facilitates transition to full oral feeding without adverse effects, including oropharyngeal aspiration. Further research is required to determine the safety and efficacy of oral feeding on CPAP and HFNC for infants and children. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number:  CRD42016039325 .

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication.

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Systemic corticosteroids for acute otitis media in children.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM) is a common acute infection in children. Pain is its most prominent and distressing symptom. Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for AOM, although they have only a modest effect in reducing pain at two to three days. There is insufficient evidence for benefits of other treatment options, including systemic corticosteroids. However, systemic corticosteroids are potent anti-inflammatory drugs, and so theoretically could be effective, either alone or as an addition to antibiotics. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of systemic corticosteroids (oral or parenteral), with or without antibiotics, for AOM in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) which contains the Cochrane ARI Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), and LILACS (BIREME) for published studies, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for completed and ongoing studies, to 20 February 2018. We checked the reference lists of all primary studies and review articles for additional references and contacted experts in the field to identify additional unpublished materials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of children with AOM that compared any systemic corticosteroid (oral or parenteral) with placebo, either with antibiotics (corticosteroid plus antibiotic versus placebo plus antibiotic) or without antibiotics (corticosteroid versus placebo). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors (EDS, RR, YP) independently screened the titles and abstracts and retrieved the full texts of potentially relevant studies. We independently extracted study characteristics and outcome data from the included studies, and assessed the risk of bias for each study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed study quality using the GRADE method. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies involving 252 children with AOM aged from three months to six years receiving hospital ambulatory care who were treated with intramuscular ceftriaxone, and who were then randomised to the corticosteroid group (corticosteroid and corticosteroid plus antihistamine) or the placebo group (antihistamine and double placebo). In one study, children also had a needle aspiration of middle ear fluid. Both studies were at unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment, and unclear to high risk of bias for selective reporting.One study (N = 179) included pain as an outcome, but we were unable to derive the proportion of children with persistent pain at Day 5 and Day 14. Reduction of overall or specific symptoms was presented as improvement in clinical symptoms and resolution of inflamed tympanic membranes without the need for additional antibiotic treatment: at Day 5 (94% of children in the treatment group (N = 89) versus 89% in the placebo group (N = 90); risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.16) and Day 14 (91% versus 87%; RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17). Low-quality evidence meant that we are uncertain of the effectiveness of corticosteroids for this outcome.The second study (N = 73) reported a reduction of overall or specific symptoms without additional antibiotic treatment during the first two weeks as a favourable outcome. Children in the treatment group had more favourable outcomes (adjusted odds ratio 65.9, 95% CI 1.28 to 1000; P = 0.037), although the numbers were small. We were unable to pool the results with the other study because it did not report the proportion of children with this outcome by treatment group. Only one study reported adverse effects of corticosteroids (e.g. drowsiness, nappy rash), but did not quantify incidence, so we were unable to draw conclusions about adverse effects. Neither study reported a reduction in overall or specific symptom duration. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the effect of systemic corticosteroids on AOM is of low to very low quality, meaning the effect of systemic corticosteroids on important clinical outcomes in AOM remains uncertain. Large, high-quality studies are required to resolve the question.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: The consequences of influenza in the elderly (those age 65 years or older) are complications, hospitalisations, and death. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of death among people who are most vulnerable. This is an update of a review published in 2010. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated because of their lack of influence on the review conclusions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in the elderly. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (1966 to 31 December 2016); Embase (1974 to 31 December 2016); Web of Science (1974 to 31 December 2016); CINAHL (1981 to 31 December 2016); LILACS (1982 to 31 December 2016); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017); and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. We considered any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation, or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention. Previous versions of this review included 67 cohort and case-control studies. The searches for these trial designs are no longer updated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We rated the certainty of evidence with GRADE for the key outcomes of influenza, ILI, complications (hospitalisation, pneumonia), and adverse events. We have presented aggregate control group risks to illustrate the effect in absolute terms. We used them as the basis for calculating the number needed to vaccinate to prevent one case of each event for influenza and ILI outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight RCTs (over 5000 participants), of which four assessed harms. The studies were conducted in community and residential care settings in Europe and the USA between 1965 and 2000. Risk of bias reduced our certainty in the findings for influenza and ILI, but not for other outcomes.Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may experience less influenza over a single season compared with placebo, from 6% to 2.4% (risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.66; low-certainty evidence). We rated the evidence as low certainty due to uncertainty over how influenza was diagnosed. Older adults probably experience less ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (3.5% versus 6%; RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). These results indicate that 30 people would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person experiencing influenza, and 42 would need to be vaccinated to prevent one person having an ILI.The study providing data for mortality and pneumonia was underpowered to detect differences in these outcomes. There were 3 deaths from 522 participants in the vaccination arm and 1 death from 177 participants in the placebo arm, providing very low-certainty evidence for the effect on mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.72). No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome (very low-certainty evidence). No data on hospitalisations were reported. Confidence intervaIs around the effect of vaccines on fever and nausea were wide, and we do not have enough information about these harms in older people (fever: 1.6% with placebo compared with 2.5% after vaccination (RR 1.57, 0.92 to 2.71; moderate-certainty evidence)); nausea (2.4% with placebo compared with 4.2% after vaccination (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.74 to 4.12; low-certainty evidence)). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Older adults receiving the influenza vaccine may have a lower risk of influenza (from 6% to 2.4%), and probably have a lower risk of ILI compared with those who do not receive a vaccination over the course of a single influenza season (from 6% to 3.5%). We are uncertain how big a difference these vaccines will make across different seasons. Very few deaths occurred, and no data on hospitalisation were reported. No cases of pneumonia occurred in one study that reported this outcome. We do not have enough information to assess harms relating to fever and nausea in this population.The evidence for a lower risk of influenza and ILI with vaccination is limited by biases in the design or conduct of the studies. Lack of detail regarding the methods used to confirm the diagnosis of influenza limits the applicability of this result. The available evidence relating to complications is of poor quality, insufficient, or old and provides no clear guidance for public health regarding the safety, efficacy, or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. Society should invest in research on a new generation of influenza vaccines for the elderly.

Determining the gaps between Cochrane reviews and trials of effectiveness of interventions for acute respiratory infections: an audit.

BACKGROUND: Cochrane primarily aims to systematically review trials of effectiveness that are important to inform clinical decisions. Editorial groups support authors to achieve high-quality reviews and prioritise review proposals in their clinical domain that are submitted or elicited. Prioritising proposals requires two approaches, identifying (1) clinical practises for which the evidence of effectiveness is uncertain and (2) interventions in which there are trials of effectiveness (especially randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) not systematically reviewed. This study addresses this second approach for the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group (CARIG) in order to identify RCTs of acute respiratory infections that have not been systematically reviewed. METHODS: We exported, on the 9th of September 2014, and then compared the group's trials register of RCTs against a list of current Cochrane ARI (systematic) Reviews to identify gaps in topics (the same intervention and health condition) where completed trials have not been systematically reviewed. We assigned a principle intervention and health condition to each of 157 Cochrane reviews (CRs) and 5393 RCTs. RESULTS: A majority of topics had been systematically reviewed; however, a substantial number (2174 or 41%) of RCTs were not included in any review. The topic that had been systematically reviewed the most was antibiotic vs placebo for pneumonia with 11 CRs and 205 RCTs. The topic that was the subject of most RCTs was vaccination for influenza with 525 RCTs and 6 CRs. Also, 6 CRs had no RCTs ('empty reviews'). CONCLUSIONS: We identified many RCT topics that have not been systematically reviewed. They need to be addressed in a separate process to establish their priority to clinicians.

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although effectiveness increases in participants with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence on the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing relapse; and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 3, 2016), Embase Elsevier (1974 to March 2016), and Web of Science Thomson Reuters (2010 to March 2016). We also searched clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, or complications or adverse events, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion, and extracted data using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias of included studies according to the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and used the GRADE tool to assess the overall quality of evidence for the outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 trials (5839 randomised participants); seven compared penicillin with cephalosporins, six compared penicillin with macrolides, three compared penicillin with carbacephem, one trial compared penicillin with sulphonamides, one trial compared clindamycin with ampicillin, and one trial compared azithromycin with amoxicillin in children. All included trials reported clinical outcomes. Reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding was poor in all trials. The overall quality of the evidence assessed using the GRADE tool was low for the outcome 'resolution of symptoms' in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and very low for the outcomes 'resolution of symptoms' of evaluable participants and for adverse events. We downgraded the quality of evidence mainly due to lack of (or poor reporting of) randomisation or blinding, or both, heterogeneity, and wide confidence intervals (CIs).There was a difference in symptom resolution in favour of cephalosporins compared with penicillin (evaluable patients analysis odds ratio (OR) for absence of resolution of symptoms 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 20, N = 5, n = 1660; very low quality evidence). However, this was not statistically significant in the ITT analysis (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.12; N = 5, n = 2018; low quality evidence). Clinical relapse was lower for cephalosporins compared with penicillin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; NNTB 50, N = 4, n = 1386; low quality evidence), but this was found only in adults (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.88; NNTB 33, N = 2, n = 770). There were no differences between macrolides and penicillin for any of the outcomes. One unpublished trial in children found a better cure rate for azithromycin in a single dose compared to amoxicillin for 10 days (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; NNTB 18, N = 1, n = 482), but there was no difference between the groups in ITT analysis (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; N = 1, n = 673) or at long-term follow-up (evaluable patients analysis OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82; N = 1, n = 422). Children experienced more adverse events with azithromycin compared to amoxicillin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.99; N = 1, n = 673). Compared with penicillin carbacephem showed better symptom resolution post-treatment in adults and children combined (ITT analysis OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14, N = 3, n = 795), and in the subgroup analysis of children (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99; NNTB 8, N = 1, n = 233), but not in the subgroup analysis of adults (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.22, N = 2, n = 562). Children experienced more adverse events with macrolides compared with penicillin (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.15; N = 1, n = 489). Studies did not report on long-term complications so it was unclear if any class of antibiotics was better in preventing serious but rare complications. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There were no clinically relevant differences in symptom resolution when comparing cephalosporins and macrolides with penicillin in the treatment of GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Limited evidence in adults suggests cephalosporins are more effective than penicillin for relapse, but the NNTB is high. Limited evidence in children suggests carbacephem is more effective than penicillin for symptom resolution. Data on complications are too scarce to draw conclusions. Based on these results and considering the low cost and absence of resistance, penicillin can still be regarded as a first choice treatment for both adults and children. All studies were in high-income countries with low risk of streptococcal complications, so there is need for trials in low-income countries and Aboriginal communities where risk of complications remains high.

Scatter of orthopaedic research: can orthopods stay up-to-date with research?

BACKGROUND: The volume of orthopaedic literature is increasing exponentially, becoming more widely scattered among journals. The rate of increase in orthopaedics is greater than other specialties. We aimed to identify the number of different journals an orthopaedic surgeon would need to read to stay up-to-date with current evidence. METHOD: We searched PubMed for all orthopaedic-related systematic reviews (SR) and randomized controlled trials (RCT) published in 2011 using MESH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. The search was based on the Australian Orthopaedic Association syllabus of March 2011. The results of the search were exported to EndNote, then Microsoft Excel. We then calculated the least number of journals needed to read 25%, 50% and 100% of the articles. This was done separately for SRs and RCTs. RESULTS: We found 1400 orthopaedic RCTs spread over 392 journals. Ten journals contained 25% of the articles, 36 journals contained 50% and 114 journals contained 75%. Three hundred journals contained three or fewer RCTs. We found 354 orthopaedic-relevant SRs spread over 152 journals. Six journals contained 25% of the articles, 23 journals contained 50% and 63 journals contained 75%. Ninety-three journals contained only one SR. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the vast scatter of orthopaedic research. Four orthopaedic RCTs are published every day. To read even 25% of the new RCTs and SRs published in orthopaedics, a surgeon would require a subscription to 13 different journals monthly, a costly and time-consuming endeavour.

Common harms from amoxicillin: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials for any indication.

BACKGROUND: When prescribing antibiotics for common indications, clinicians need information about both harms and benefits, information that is currently available only from observational studies. We quantified the common harms of the most frequently prescribed antibiotic, amoxicillin, from randomized placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: For this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, without language restriction, for any randomized, participant-blinded, placebo-controlled trials of amoxicillin or amoxicillin-clavulanic acid for any indication, in any setting. Our main outcome was any reported adverse event. RESULTS: Of 730 studies identified, we included 45 trials: 27 involving amoxicillin, 17 involving amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and 1 involving both. The indications for antibiotic therapy were variable. The risk of bias was low, although only 25 trials provided data suitable for assessment of harms, which suggested under-reporting. Diarrhea was attributed to amoxicillin only in the form of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid (Peto odds ratio [OR] 3.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-4.87). The OR for candidiasis (3 trials) was significantly higher (OR 7.77, 95% CI 2.23-27.11). Rashes, nausea, itching, vomiting and abnormal results on liver function tests were not significantly increased. The results were not altered by sensitivity analyses, nor did funnel plots suggest publication bias. The number of courses of antibiotics needed to harm was 10 (95% CI 6-17) for diarrhea with amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and 27 (95% CI 24-42) for candidiasis with amoxicillin (with or without clavulanic acid). INTERPRETATION: Diarrhea was caused by use of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, and candidiasis was caused by both amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid. Harms were poorly reported in most trials, and their true incidence may have been higher than reported. Nevertheless, these rates of common harms associated with amoxicillin therapy may inform decisions by helping clinicians to balance harms against benefits.

The scatter of research: cross sectional comparison of randomised trials and systematic reviews across specialties.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the degree of scatter of reports of randomised trials and systematic reviews, and how the scatter differs among medical specialties and subspecialties. DESIGN: Cross sectional analysis. DATA SOURCE: PubMed for all disease relevant randomised trials and systematic reviews published in 2009. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials and systematic reviews of the nine diseases or disorders with the highest burden of disease, and the broader category of disease to which each belonged. RESULTS: The scatter across journals varied considerably among specialties and subspecialties: otolaryngology had the least scatter (363 trials across 167 journals) and neurology the most (2770 trials across 896 journals). In only three subspecialties (lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hearing loss) were 10 or fewer journals needed to locate 50% of trials. The scatter was less for systematic reviews: hearing loss had the least scatter (10 reviews across nine journals) and cancer the most (670 reviews across 279 journals). For some specialties and subspecialties the papers were concentrated in specialty journals; whereas for others, few of the top 10 journals were a specialty journal for that area. Generally, little overlap occurred between the top 10 journals publishing trials and those publishing systematic reviews. The number of journals required to find all trials or reviews was highly correlated (r = 0.97) with the number of papers for each specialty/subspecialty. CONCLUSIONS: Publication rates of speciality relevant trials vary widely, from one to seven trials per day, and are scattered across hundreds of general and specialty journals. Although systematic reviews reduce the extent of scatter, they are still widely scattered and mostly in different journals to those of randomised trials. Personal subscriptions to journals, which are insufficient for keeping up to date with knowledge, need to be supplemented by other methods such as journal scanning services or systems that cover sufficient journals and filter articles for quality and relevance. Few current systems seem adequate.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections like influenza or severe acute respiratory syndrome pose a global threat. Antiviral drugs and vaccinations may be insufficient to prevent their spread. OBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2010, Issue 3), which includes the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to October 2010), OLDMEDLINE (1950 to 1965), EMBASE (1990 to October 2010), CINAHL (1982 to October 2010), LILACS (2008 to October 2010), Indian MEDLARS (2008 to October 2010) and IMSEAR (2008 to October 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: In this update, two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria to all identified and retrieved articles and extracted data. We scanned 3775 titles, excluded 3560 and retrieved full papers of 215 studies, to include 66 papers of 67 studies. We included physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection, hand hygiene) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, case-controls, before-after and time series studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a standardised form to assess trial eligibility. We assessed RCTs by randomisation method, allocation generation, concealment, blinding and follow up. We assessed non-RCTs for potential confounders and classified them as low, medium and high risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We included 67 studies including randomised controlled trials and observational studies with a mixed risk of bias. A total number of participants is not included as the total would be made up of a heterogenous set of observations (participant people, observations on participants and countries (object of some studies)). The risk of bias for five RCTs and most cluster-RCTs was high. Observational studies were of mixed quality. Only case-control data were sufficiently homogeneous to allow meta-analysis. The highest quality cluster-RCTs suggest respiratory virus spread can be prevented by hygienic measures, such as handwashing, especially around younger children. Benefit from reduced transmission from children to household members is broadly supported also in other study designs where the potential for confounding is greater. Nine case-control studies suggested implementing transmission barriers, isolation and hygienic measures are effective at containing respiratory virus epidemics. Surgical masks or N95 respirators were the most consistent and comprehensive supportive measures. N95 respirators were non-inferior to simple surgical masks but more expensive, uncomfortable and irritating to skin. Adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to decrease respiratory disease transmission remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, led to a non-significant marginal delay in spread. There was limited evidence that social distancing was effective, especially if related to the risk of exposure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Simple and low-cost interventions would be useful for reducing transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. Routine long-term implementation of some measures assessed might be difficult without the threat of an epidemic.

Advising patients to increase fluid intake for treating acute respiratory infections.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory infection is a common reason for people to present for medical care. Advice to increase fluid intake is a frequent treatment recommendation. Attributed benefits of fluids include replacing increased insensible fluid losses, correcting dehydration from reduced intake and reducing the viscosity of mucus. However, there are theoretical reasons for increased fluid intake to cause harm. Anti-diuretic hormone secretion is increased in lower respiratory tract infections of various aetiologies. This systematic examination of the evidence sought to determine the benefit versus harm from increasing fluid intake. OBJECTIVES: To answer the following questions.1. Does recommending increased fluid intake as a treatment for acute respiratory infections improve duration and severity of symptoms? 2. Are there adverse effects from recommending increased fluids in people with acute respiratory infections? 3. Are any benefits or harms related to site of infection (upper or lower respiratory tract) or a different severity of illness? SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, issue 4), which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to November Week 3, 2010), EMBASE (1974 to December 2010), Current Contents (2000 to December 2010) and CINAHL (1982 to December 2010). We searched reference lists of articles identified and contacted experts in the relevant disciplines. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the effect of increasing fluid intake in people with acute respiratory infections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the identified studies to determine eligibility for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs assessing the effect of increasing fluid intake in acute respiratory infections were found. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence from RCTs for or against the recommendation to increase fluids in acute respiratory infections. The implications for fluid management of acute respiratory infections in the outpatient or primary care setting have not been studied in any RCTs to date. Some non-experimental (observational) studies report that increasing fluid intake in acute respiratory infections of the lower respiratory tract may cause harm. RCTs need to be done to determine the true effect of this very common medical advice.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines have been the main global weapon to minimise the impact of influenza in the elderly for the last four decades and are recommended worldwide for individuals aged 65 years or older. The primary goal of influenza vaccination in the elderly is to reduce the risk of complications among persons who are most vulnerable. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing influenza, influenza-like illness (ILI), hospital admissions, complications and mortality in the elderly. To identify and appraise comparative studies evaluating the effects of influenza vaccines in the elderly. To document types and frequency of adverse effects associated with influenza vaccines in the elderly. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 4); MEDLINE (January 1966 to October Week 1 2009); EMBASE (1974 to October 2009) and Web of Science (1974 to October 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cohort and case-control studies assessing efficacy against influenza (laboratory-confirmed cases) or effectiveness against influenza-like illness (ILI) or safety. Any influenza vaccine given independently, in any dose, preparation or time schedule, compared with placebo or with no intervention was considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We grouped reports first according to the setting of the study (community or long-term care facilities) and then by level of viral circulation and vaccine matching. We further stratified by co-administration of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV) and by different types of influenza vaccines. We analysed the following outcomes: influenza, influenza-like illness, hospital admissions, complications and deaths. MAIN RESULTS: We included 75 studies. Overall we identified 100 data sets. We identified one RCT assessing efficacy and effectiveness. Although this seemed to show an effect against influenza symptoms it was underpowered to detect any effect on complications (1348 participants). The remainder of our evidence base included non-RCTs. Due to the general low quality of non-RCTs and the likely presence of biases, which make interpretation of these data difficult and any firm conclusions potentially misleading, we were unable to reach clear conclusions about the effects of the vaccines in the elderly. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. To resolve the uncertainty, an adequately powered publicly-funded randomised, placebo-controlled trial run over several seasons should be undertaken.