Environmental sanitary interventions for preventing active trachoma.

BACKGROUND: Trachoma is a major cause of avoidable blindness. It is responsible for about six million blind people worldwide, mostly in the poor communities of developing countries. One of the major strategies advocated for the control of the disease is the application of various environmental sanitary measures to such communities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the effectiveness of environmental sanitary measures on the prevalence of active trachoma in endemic areas. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2007), EMBASE (1980 to July 2007), LILACS (July 2007), reference list of trials and the Science Citation Index. We also contacted agencies, experts and researchers in trachoma control. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any form of environmental hygiene measures with no measure. These hygiene measures included fly control, provision of water and health education. Participants in the trials were people normally resident in the trachoma endemic areas. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Four trials met the inclusion criteria but meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity of the studies. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies that assessed insecticide spray as a fly control measure found that trachoma is reduced by at least 55% to 61% with this measure compared to no intervention. However, another study did not find insecticide spray to be effective in reducing trachoma. One study found that another fly control measure, latrine provision, reduced trachoma by 29.5% compared to no intervention; this was, however, not statistically significantly different. Another study revealed that health education on personal and household hygiene reduced the incidence of trachoma such that the odds of reducing trachoma in the health education village was about twice that of the no intervention village. However, all the studies have some methodological concerns relating to concealment of allocation and non-consideration of clustering effect in data analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The role of insecticide spray as a fly control measure in reducing trachoma remains unclear. Latrine provision as a fly control measure has not demonstrated significant trachoma reduction. Health education may be effective in reducing trachoma. There is a dearth of data to determine the effectiveness of all aspects of environmental sanitation in the control of trachoma.

Interventions for promoting booster seat use in four to eight year olds traveling in motor vehicles.

BACKGROUND: Public health and traffic safety agencies recommend use of booster seats in motor vehicles for children aged four to eight years, and various interventions have been implemented to increase their use by individuals who transport children in motor vehicles. There is little evidence regarding the effectiveness of these interventions, hence the need to examine what works and what does not. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions intended to increase acquisition and use of booster seats in motor vehicles among four to eight year olds. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (January 1966 to April 2005), EMBASE (1980 to April 2005), LILACS, Transport Research Databases (1988 to April 2005), Australian Transport Index (1976 to April 2005), additional databases and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and controlled before-and-after trials that investigated the effects of interventions to promote booster seat use. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies involving 3,070 individuals met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. All interventions for promoting use of booster seats among 4 to 8 year olds demonstrated a positive effect (relative risk (RR) 1.43; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.05 to 1.96). Incentives combined with education demonstrated a beneficial effect (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.55; n = 1,898). Distribution of free booster seats combined with education also had a beneficial effect (RR 2.34; 95% CI 1.50 to 3.63; n = 380) as did education-only interventions (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.49; n = 563). One study which evaluated enforcement of booster seat law met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, but demonstrated no marked beneficial effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that interventions to increase use of booster seats among children age four to eight years are effective. Combining incentives (booster seat discount coupons or gift certificates) or distribution of free booster seats with education demonstrated marked beneficial outcomes for acquisition and use of booster seats for four to eight year olds. There is some evidence of beneficial effect of legislation on acquisition and use of booster seats but this was mainly from uncontrolled before-and-after studies, which did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis.

Albendazole for lymphatic filariasis.

BACKGROUND: Mass treatment with albendazole co-administered with another antifilarial drug is part of a global programme to eliminate lymphatic filariasis. We sought reliable evidence of the effects of albendazole on the disease and the parasite. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the effects of albendazole alone or in combination with antifilarial drugs for clinical treatment and community control of lymphatic filariasis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (August 2005), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2005), EMBASE (1974 to August 2005), LILACS (1982 to August 2005), and reference lists. We also contacted researchers, the World Health Organization, and GlaxoSmithKline. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of albendazole alone or combined with another antifilarial drug for treating individuals with lymphatic filariasis, or for reducing transmission in endemic communities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed eligibility and trial quality, and extracted data. Authors contacted investigators for missing information or clarification. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials including 6997 participants (995 with detectable microfilariae) met the criteria. A comparison of albendazole and placebo detected no effect on microfilariae prevalence (920 participants; 3 trials); one trial (499 participants) reported significantly lower microfilariae density at six months. Albendazole performed slightly worse than ivermectin in two trials (436 participants). Compared with diethylcarbamazine (DEC), two small trials (56 participants) found little difference in microfilariae prevalence over an extended follow up. One larger trial (502 participants) found a statistically significant effect for DEC at six months, but none at three months. Microfilariae prevalence and density were statistically significantly lower with the combination of albendazole and ivermectin compared with ivermectin alone in two of three trials (649 participants). Two trials compared albendazole plus DEC with DEC alone and found no statistically significant difference in microfilariae prevalence, though one trial favoured the combination at six months (relative risk 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 1.21; 491 participants). This trial also found a statistically significant reduction in microfilariae density. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to confirm or refute that albendazole co-administered with DEC or ivermectin is more effective than DEC or ivermectin alone in clearing microfilariae or killing adult worms. Albendazole combined with ivermectin appears to have a small effect on microfilaraemia, but this was not consistently demonstrated. The effect of albendazole against adult and larval filarial parasites, alone and in combination with other antifilarial drugs, deserves further rigorous research.

Environmental sanitary interventions for preventing active trachoma.

BACKGROUND: Trachoma is the second or third major cause of blindness. It is responsible for about six million blind people worldwide, mostly in the poor communities of developing countries. One of the major strategies advocated for the control of the disease is the application of various environmental sanitary measures to such communities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the effectiveness of environmental sanitary measures on the prevalence of active trachoma in endemic areas. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2005), EMBASE (1980 to January 2005), LILACS (April 2004), the reference list of trials and the Science Citation Index. We also contacted agencies, experts and researchers in trachoma control. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any form of environmental hygiene measures with no measure. These hygienic measures included fly control, provision of water and health education. Participants in the trials were people normally resident in the trachoma endemic areas. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Three trials met the inclusion criteria but meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity of the studies. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies that assessed insecticide spray as a fly control measure found that trachoma is reduced by at least 55% to 61% with this measure compared to no intervention. One study found that another fly control measure, latrine provision, reduced trachoma by 29.5% compared to no intervention; this was, however, not statistically significantly different. Another study revealed that health education on personal and household hygiene reduced the incidence of trachoma such that the odds of reducing trachoma in the health education village was about twice that of the no intervention village. However, all the studies have some methodological concerns relating to concealment of allocation and non-consideration of clustering effect in data analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that insecticide spray as a fly control measure reduces trachoma significantly. Latrine provision as a fly control measure has not demonstrated significant trachoma reduction. Health education may be effective in reducing trachoma. There is a dearth of data to determine the effectiveness of all aspects of environmental sanitation in the control of trachoma.

Face washing promotion for preventing active trachoma.

BACKGROUND: Trachoma remains a major cause of avoidable blindness among underprivileged populations in many developing countries. It is estimated that about 146 million people have active trachoma and nearly six million people are blind due to complications associated with repeat infections. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to assess the effects of face washing on the prevalence of active trachoma in endemic communities. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group trials register) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2004), EMBASE (1980 to February 2004), the reference lists of identified trials and the Science Citation Index. We also contacted investigators and experts in the field to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, comparing face washing with no treatment or face washing combined with antibiotics against antibiotics alone. Participants in the trials were people normally resident in endemic trachoma communities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Two clinically heterogeneous trials are included, therefore a meta-analysis was considered inappropriate. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes two trials with data from a total of 2560 participants. Face washing combined with topical tetracycline was compared to topical tetracycline alone in three pairs of villages in one trial. The trial found a statistically significant effect for face washing combined with topical tetracycline in reducing 'severe' active trachoma compared to topical tetracycline alone. No statistically significant difference was observed between the intervention and control villages in reducing ('non-severe') active trachoma. The prevalence of clean faces was higher in the intervention villages than the control villages and this was statistically significant. Another trial compared eye washing to no treatment or to topical tetracycline alone or to a combination of eye washing and tetracycline drops in children with follicular trachoma. The trial found no statistically significant benefit of eye washing alone or in combination with tetracycline eye drops in reducing follicular trachoma amongst children with follicular trachoma. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that face washing combined with topical tetracycline can be effective in reducing severe trachoma and in increasing the prevalence of clean faces. Current evidence does not however support a beneficial effect of face washing alone or in combination with topical tetracycline in reducing active trachoma.

Needling for encapsulated trabeculectomy filtering blebs.

BACKGROUND: Encapsulation of a filtering bleb following trabeculectomy may lead to elevation of intraocular pressure, prompting further medical or surgical intervention. It has been suggested that needling of an encapsulated bleb may be effective in re-establishing drainage and lowering intraocular pressure. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to assess the effects of needling encapsulated blebs on intraocular pressure. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials - CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group trials register) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 2 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2003), EMBASE (1980 to May 2003) and LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences ) (June 2003). There were no language or date restrictions in the searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised in which bleb needling was compared with any form of antiglaucoma medication in people with encapsulated trabeculectomy blebs. The primary outcome was mean intraocular pressure measured in millimetres of mercury at day one, one week, one month and at last available follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: One trial, which randomised 25 eyes to either needling or medical treatment, met the inclusion criteria. At one day post-treatment, mean intraocular pressure was lower in the needling group (16.28 mm Hg, standard deviation 5.9) than the medical group (19.45 mm Hg, standard deviation 3.75). The difference was not statistically significant. At all other follow-up points, mean intraocular pressure was consistently higher in the needling group than the medical group, although the differences were not statistically significant. However, only one needled bleb remained successful at the end of follow-up compared to 10 out of the 11 blebs managed conservatively. This difference was statistically highly significant. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from one small trial suggests that needling of encapsulated trabeculectomy blebs is not better than medical treatment in reducing intraocular pressure.

Ivermectin for onchocercal eye disease (river blindness).

BACKGROUND: It is believed that ivermectin (a microfilaricide) could prevent blindness due to onchocerciasis. However, when given to everyone in communities where onchocerciasis is common, the effects of ivermectin on lesions affecting the eye are uncertain and data on whether the drug prevents visual loss is unclear. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to assess the effectiveness of ivermectin in preventing visual acuity and visual field loss in onchocercal eye disease. The secondary aim is to assess the effects of ivermectin on lesions affecting the eye in onchocerciasis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group specialised register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register - CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the reference lists of identified trials, the Science Citation Index and we contacted investigators, experts and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials with at least one year follow up, comparing ivermectin at a dose of 150 micrograms per kilogram of body weight with either placebo or no treatment. Participants were people normally resident in endemic onchocercal communities with or without one or more characteristic signs of ocular onchocerciasis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Trials varied in design and setting, so no meta-analysis was done. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes five trials with data from 3810 participants. All the trials compared ivermectin with placebo and were judged to be of moderate risk of bias in terms of methodological quality. No statistically significant difference was observed in any trial (reporting visual acuity outcome) between ivermectin and placebo groups for visual acuity loss. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Questions about the effectiveness of ivermectin in preventing visual acuity loss have not been answered by best available evidence.