Search strategies (filters) to identify systematic reviews in MEDLINE and Embase.

BACKGROUND: Bibliographic databases provide access to an international body of scientific literature in health and medical sciences. Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for clinicians, researchers, consumers, and policymakers as they address a specific health-related question and use explicit methods to identify, appraise and synthesize evidence from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made. Methodological search filters help database end-users search the literature effectively with different levels of sensitivity and specificity. These filters have been developed for various study designs and have been found to be particularly useful for intervention studies. Other filters have been developed for finding systematic reviews. Considering the variety and number of available search filters for systematic reviews, there is a need for a review of them in order to provide evidence about their retrieval properties at the time they were developed. OBJECTIVES: To review systematically empirical studies that report the development, evaluation, or comparison of search filters to retrieve reports of systematic reviews in MEDLINE and Embase. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to January 2023: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA) and Science Citation Index (Web of Science). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies if one of their primary objectives is the development, evaluation, or comparison of a search filter that could be used to retrieve systematic reviews on MEDLINE, Embase, or both. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-specified and piloted data extraction form using InterTASC Information Specialist Subgroup (ISSG) Search Filter Evaluation Checklist. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight studies that developed filters for MEDLINE and three studies that developed filters for Embase. Most studies are very old and some were limited to systematic reviews in specific clinical areas. Six included studies reported the sensitivity of their developed filter. Seven studies reported precision and six studies reported specificity. Only one study reported the number needed to read and positive predictive value. None of the filters were designed to differentiate systematic reviews on the basis of their methodological quality. For MEDLINE, all filters showed similar sensitivity and precision, and one filter showed higher levels of specificity. For Embase, filters showed variable sensitivity and precision, with limited study reports that may affect accuracy assessments. The report of these studies had some limitations, and the assessments of their accuracy may suffer from indirectness, considering that they were mostly developed before the release of the PRISMA 2009 statement or due to their limited scope in the selection of systematic review topics. Search filters for MEDLINE Three studies produced filters with sensitivity > 90% with variable degrees of precision, and only one of them was developed and validated in a gold-standard database, which allowed the calculation of specificity. The other two search filters had lower levels of sensitivity. One of these produced a filter with higher levels of specificity (> 90%). All filters showed similar sensitivity and precision in the external validation, except for one which was not externally validated and another one which was conceptually derived and only externally validated. Search filters for Embase We identified three studies that developed filters for this database. One of these studies developed filters with variable sensitivity and precision, including highly sensitive strategies (> 90%); however, it was not externally validated. The other study produced a filter with a lower sensitivity (72.7%) but high specificity (99.1%) with a similar performance in the external validation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Studies reporting the development, evaluation, or comparison of search filters to retrieve reports of systematic reviews in MEDLINE showed similar sensitivity and precision, with one filter showing higher levels of specificity. For Embase, filters showed variable sensitivity and precision, with limited information about how the filter was produced, which leaves us uncertain about their performance assessments. Newer filters had limitations in their methods or scope, including very focused subject topics for their gold standards, limiting their applicability across other topics. Our findings highlight that consensus guidance on the conduct of search filters and standardized reporting of search filters are needed, as we found highly heterogeneous development methods, accuracy assessments and outcome selection. New strategies adaptable across interfaces could enhance their usability. Moreover, the performance of existing filters needs to be evaluated in light of the impact of reporting guidelines, including the PRISMA 2009, on how systematic reviews are reported. Finally, future filter developments should also consider comparing the filters against a common reference set to establish comparative performance and assess the quality of systematic reviews retrieved by strategies.

Serenoa repens for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement.

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a non-malignant enlargement of the prostate, which can lead to obstructive and irritative lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The pharmacologic use of plants and herbs (phytotherapy) for the treatment of LUTS associated with BPH is common. The extract of the berry of the American saw palmetto or dwarf palm plant, Serenoa repens (SR), which is also known by its botanical name of Sabal serrulatum, is one of several phytotherapeutic agents available for the treatment of BPH. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of Serenoa repens in the treatment of men with LUTS consistent with BPH. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings published up to 16 September 2022, with no restrictions on language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of participants with BPH who were treated with Serenoa repens or placebo/no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. We considered review outcomes measured up to 12 months after randomization as short term, and beyond 12 months as long term. Our main outcomes included urologic symptom scores, quality of life, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: For this update, we narrowed the review question to only comparisons with placebo. We included 27 studies (of which 9 were new) involving a total of 4656 participants, 19 studies comparing Serenoa repens with placebo, and 8 studies comparing Serenoa repens in combination with other phytotherapeutic agents versus placebo. Most studies included men aged > 50 (mean age range 52 to 68) with moderate urologic symptoms (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS] range 8 to 19). Ten studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry; two studies were funded by government agencies; and the remaining studies did not specify funding sources. Serenoa repens versus placebo or no intervention Results for this comparison are based on predefined sensitivity analyses limited to studies at low risk of bias. Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in urologic symptoms at short-term follow-up (3 to 6 months; IPSS score range 0 to 35, higher scores indicate worse symptoms; mean difference (MD) -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.74 to -0.07; I2 = 68%; 9 studies, 1681 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in the quality of life at short-term follow-up (3 to 6 months; IPSS quality of life domain range 0 to 6, higher scores indicate worse quality of life; MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.00; I2 = 39%; 5 studies, 1001 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serenoa repens probably results in little to no difference in adverse events (1 to 17 months; risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.31; I2 = 18%; 12 studies, 2399 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on 164 cases per 1000 men in the placebo group, this corresponds to 2 more (38 fewer to 51 more) per 1000 men in the Serenoa repens group. Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in urologic symptoms at long-term follow-up (12 to 17 months, IPSS score, MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.88; I2 = 34%; 3 studies, 898 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in quality of life at long-term follow-up (12 to 17 months, IPSS quality of life, MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.19; I2 = 65%; 3 studies, 882 participants; high-certainty evidence). There were no data on long-term adverse events for this comparison. Serenoa repens in combination with other phytotherapy versus placebo or no intervention Different phytotherapeutic agents that include Serenoa repens may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms compared to placebo at short-term follow-up (12 to 24 weeks, IPSS score, MD -2.41, 95% CI -4.54 to -0.29; I2 = 67%; 4 studies, 460 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of these agents on quality of life (very low-certainty evidence). These agents may result in little to no difference in the occurrence of adverse events; however, the CIs included substantial benefits and harms (12 to 48 weeks, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 481 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 132 cases per 1000 men in the placebo group, this corresponds to 12 fewer (55 fewer to 54 more) per 1000 men in the combined phytotherapeutic agents with Serenoa repens group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Serenoa repens alone provides little to no benefits for men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement. There is more uncertainty about the role of Serenoa repens in combination with other phytotherapeutic agents.

Non-Chinese herbal medicines for functional dyspepsia.

BACKGROUND: One-third of people with gastrointestinal disorders, including functional dyspepsia, use some form of complementary and alternative medicine, including herbal medicines. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to assess the effects of non-Chinese herbal medicines for the treatment of people with functional dyspepsia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases on 22 December 2022: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, among other sources, without placing language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing non-Chinese herbal medicines versus placebo or other treatments in people with functional dyspepsia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened references, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias from trial reports. We used a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs). We created effect direction plots when meta-analysis was not possible, following the reporting guideline for Synthesis without Meta-analysis (SWiM). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence (CoE) for all outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 trials with 4477 participants that assessed 27 herbal medicines. This review evaluated global symptoms of functional dyspepsia, adverse events and quality of life; however, some studies did not report these outcomes. STW5 (Iberogast) may moderately improve global symptoms of dyspepsia compared with placebo at 28 to 56 days; however, the evidence is very uncertain (MD -2.64, 95% CI -4.39 to -0.90; I2 = 87%; 5 studies, 814 participants; very low CoE). STW5 may also increase the improvement rate compared to placebo at four to eight weeks' follow-up (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.47; 2 studies, 324 participants; low CoE). There was little to no difference in adverse events for STW5 compared to placebo (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.64; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 786 participants; low CoE). STW5 may cause little to no difference in quality of life compared to placebo (no numerical data available, low CoE). Peppermint and caraway oil probably result in a large improvement in global symptoms of dyspepsia compared to placebo at four weeks (SMD -0.87, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.58; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 210 participants; moderate CoE) and increase the improvement rate of global symptoms of dyspepsia (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.81; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 305 participants; moderate CoE). There may be little to no difference in the rate of adverse events between this intervention and placebo (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.53; I2 = 47%; 3 studies, 305 participants; low CoE). The intervention probably improves the quality of life (measured on the Nepean Dyspepsia Index) (MD -131.40, 95% CI -193.76 to -69.04; 1 study, 99 participants; moderate CoE). Curcuma longa probably results in a moderate improvement global symptoms of dyspepsia compared to placebo at four weeks (MD -3.33, 95% CI -5.84 to -0.81; I2 = 50%; 2 studies, 110 participants; moderate CoE) and may increase the improvement rate (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.11; 1 study, 76 participants; low CoE). There is probably little to no difference in the rate of adverse events between this intervention and placebo (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.08; 1 study, 89 participants; moderate CoE). The intervention probably improves the quality of life, measured on the EQ-5D (MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; 1 study, 89 participants; moderate CoE). We found evidence that the following herbal medicines may improve symptoms of dyspepsia compared to placebo: Lafonesia pacari (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.14; 1 study, 97 participants; moderate CoE), Nigella sativa (SMD -1.59, 95% CI -2.13 to -1.05; 1 study, 70 participants; high CoE), artichoke (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.09; 1 study, 244 participants; low CoE), Boensenbergia rotunda (SMD -2.22, 95% CI -2.62 to -1.83; 1 study, 160 participants; low CoE), Pistacia lenticus (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.01; 1 study, 148 participants; low CoE), Enteroplant (SMD -1.09, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.77; 1 study, 198 participants; low CoE), Ferula asafoetida (SMD -1.51, 95% CI -2.20 to -0.83; 1 study, 43 participants; low CoE), ginger and artichoke (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.13; 1 study, 126 participants; low CoE), Glycyrrhiza glaba (SMD -1.86, 95% CI -2.54 to -1.19; 1 study, 50 participants; moderate CoE), OLNP-06 (RR 3.80, 95% CI 1.70 to 8.51; 1 study, 48 participants; low CoE), red pepper (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.89 to -0.26; 1 study, 27 participants; low CoE), Cuadrania tricuspidata (SMD -1.19, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.72; 1 study, 83 participants; low CoE), jollab (SMD -1.22, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.85; 1 study, 133 participants; low CoE), Pimpinella anisum (SMD -2.30, 95% CI -2.79 to -1.80; 1 study, 107 participants; low CoE). The following may provide little to no difference compared to placebo: Mentha pulegium (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.02; 1 study, 100 participants; moderate CoE) and cinnamon oil (SMD 0.38, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.94; 1 study, 51 participants; low CoE); moreover, Mentha longifolia may increase dyspeptic symptoms (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.88; 1 study, 88 participants; low CoE). Almost all the studies reported little to no difference in the rate of adverse events compared to placebo except for red pepper, which may result in a higher risk of adverse events compared to placebo (RR 4.31, 95% CI 1.56 to 11.89; 1 study, 27 participants; low CoE). With respect to the quality of life, most studies did not report this outcome. When compared to other interventions, essential oils may improve global symptoms of dyspepsia compared to omeprazole. Peppermint oil/caraway oil, STW5, Nigella sativa and Curcuma longa may provide little to no benefit compared to other treatments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate to very low-certainty evidence, we identified some herbal medicines that may be effective in improving symptoms of dyspepsia. Moreover, these interventions may not be associated with important adverse events. More high-quality trials are needed on herbal medicines, especially including participants with common gastrointestinal comorbidities.

Antioxidants to prevent respiratory decline in people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy and progressive respiratory decline.

BACKGROUND: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is an X-linked recessive disorder characterised by progressive muscle weakness beginning in early childhood. Respiratory failure and weak cough develop in all patients as a consequence of muscle weakness leading to a risk of atelectasis, pneumonia, or the need for ventilatory support. There is no curative treatment for DMD. Corticosteroids are the only pharmacological intervention proven to delay the onset and progression of muscle weakness and thus respiratory decline in DMD. Antioxidant treatment has been proposed to try to reduce muscle weakness in general, and respiratory decline in particular.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antioxidant agents on preventing respiratory decline in people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy during the respiratory decline phase of the condition.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers to 23 March 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. We included male patients with a diagnosis of DMD who had respiratory decline evidenced by a forced vital capacity (FVC%) less than 80% but greater than 30% of predicted values, receiving any antioxidant agent compared with other therapies for the management of DMD or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias of studies, and extracted data. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary outcomes were FVC and hospitalisation due to respiratory infections. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, adverse events, change in muscle function, forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), and peak expiratory flow (PEF).  MAIN RESULTS: We included one study with 66 participants who were not co-treated with corticosteroids, which was the only study to contribute data to our main analysis. We also included a study that enrolled 255 participants treated with corticosteroids, which was only available as a press release without numerical results. The studies were parallel-group RCTs that assessed the effect of idebenone on respiratory function compared to placebo. The trial that contributed numerical data included patients with a mean (standard deviation) age of 14.3 (2.7) years at the time of inclusion, with a documented diagnosis of DMD or severe dystrophinopathy with clinical features consistent with typical DMD. The overall risk of bias across most outcomes was similar and judged as 'low'.  Idebenone may result in a slightly less of a decline in FVC from baseline to one year compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) 3.28%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.41 to 6.97; 64 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably has little or no effect on change in quality of life (MD -3.80, 95% CI -10.09 to 2.49; 63 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL), range 0 to 100, 0 = worst, 100 = best quality of life). As a related but secondary outcome, idebenone may result in less of a decline from baseline in FEV1 (MD 8.28%, 95% CI 0.89 to 15.67; 53 participants) and PEF (MD 6.27%, 95% CI 0.61 to 11.93; 1 trial, 64 participants) compared to placebo. Idebenone was associated with fewer serious adverse events (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.04; 66 participants; low-certainty evidence) and little to no difference in non-serious adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; 66 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. Idebenone may result in little to no difference in change in arm muscle function (MD -2.45 N, 95% CI -8.60 to 3.70 for elbow flexors and MD -1.06 N, 95% CI -6.77 to 4.65 for elbow extensors; both 52 participants) compared to placebo. We found no studies evaluating the outcome hospitalisation due to respiratory infection.  The second trial, involving 255 participants, for which data were available only as a press release without numerical data, was prematurely discontinued due to futility after an interim efficacy analysis based on FVC. There were no safety concerns. The certainty of the evidence was low for most outcomes due to imprecision and publication bias (the lack of a full report of the larger trial, which was prematurely terminated). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Idebenone is the only antioxidant agent tested in RCTs for preventing respiratory decline in people with DMD for which evidence was available for assessment. Idebenone may result in slightly less of a decline in FVC and less of a decline in FEV1 and PEF, but probably has little to no measurable effect on change in quality of life. Idebenone is associated with fewer serious adverse events than placebo. Idebenone may result in little to no difference in change in muscle function. Discontinuation due to the futility of the SIDEROS trial and its expanded access programmes may indicate that idebenone research in this condition is no longer needed, but we await the trial data. Further research is needed to establish the effect of different antioxidant agents on preventing respiratory decline in people with DMD during the respiratory decline phase of the condition.

Antioxidants to prevent respiratory decline in people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy and progressive respiratory decline.

BACKGROUND: Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is an X-linked recessive disorder characterised by progressive muscle weakness beginning in early childhood. Respiratory failure and weak cough develop in all patients as a consequence of muscle weakness leading to a risk of atelectasis, pneumonia, or the need for ventilatory support. There is no curative treatment for DMD. Corticosteroids are the only pharmacological intervention proven to delay the onset and progression of muscle weakness and thus respiratory decline in DMD. Antioxidant treatment has been proposed to try to reduce muscle weakness in general, and respiratory decline in particular.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antioxidant agents on preventing respiratory decline in people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy during the respiratory decline phase of the condition.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers to 23 March 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. We included male patients with a diagnosis of DMD who had respiratory decline evidenced by a forced vital capacity (FVC%) less than 80% but greater than 30% of predicted values, receiving any antioxidant agent compared with other therapies for the management of DMD or placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias of studies, and extracted data. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The primary outcomes were FVC and hospitalisation due to respiratory infections. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, adverse events, change in muscle function, forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), and peak expiratory flow (PEF).  MAIN RESULTS: We included one study with 66 participants who were not co-treated with corticosteroids, which was the only study to contribute data to our main analysis. We also included a study that enrolled 255 participants treated with corticosteroids, which was only available as a press release without numerical results. The studies were parallel-group RCTs that assessed the effect of idebenone on respiratory function compared to placebo. The trial that contributed numerical data included patients with a mean (standard deviation) age of 14.3 (2.7) years at the time of inclusion, with a documented diagnosis of DMD or severe dystrophinopathy with clinical features consistent with typical DMD. The overall risk of bias across most outcomes was similar and judged as 'low'.  Idebenone may result in a slightly less of a decline in FVC from baseline to one year compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) 3.28%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.41 to 6.97; 64 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably has little or no effect on change in quality of life (MD -3.80, 95% CI -10.09 to 2.49; 63 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL), range 0 to 100, 0 = worst, 100 = best quality of life). As a related but secondary outcome, idebenone may result in less of a decline from baseline in FEV1 (MD 8.28%, 95% CI 0.89 to 15.67; 53 participants) and PEF (MD 6.27%, 95% CI 0.61 to 11.93; 1 trial, 64 participants) compared to placebo. Idebenone was associated with fewer serious adverse events (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.04; 66 participants; low-certainty evidence) and little to no difference in non-serious adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; 66 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. Idebenone may result in little to no difference in change in arm muscle function (MD -2.45 N, 95% CI -8.60 to 3.70 for elbow flexors and MD -1.06 N, 95% CI -6.77 to 4.65 for elbow extensors; both 52 participants) compared to placebo. We found no studies evaluating the outcome hospitalisation due to respiratory infection.  The second trial, involving 255 participants, for which data were available only as a press release without numerical data, was prematurely discontinued due to futility after an interim efficacy analysis based on FVC. There were no safety concerns. The certainty of the evidence was low for most outcomes due to imprecision and publication bias (the lack of a full report of the larger trial, which was prematurely terminated). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Idebenone is the only antioxidant agent tested in RCTs for preventing respiratory decline in people with DMD for which evidence was available for assessment. Idebenone may result in slightly less of a decline in FVC and less of a decline in FEV1 and PEF, but probably has little to no measurable effect on change in quality of life. Idebenone is associated with fewer serious adverse events than placebo. Idebenone may result in little to no difference in change in muscle function. Discontinuation due to the futility of the SIDEROS trial and its expanded access programmes may indicate that idebenone research in this condition is no longer needed, but we await the trial data. Further research is needed to establish the effect of different antioxidant agents on preventing respiratory decline in people with DMD during the respiratory decline phase of the condition.

Palivizumab for preventing severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection in children.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory viruses are the leading cause of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) and hospitalisation in infants and young children. Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the main infectious agent in this population. Palivizumab is administered intramuscularly every month during five months in the first RSV season to prevent serious RSV LRTI in children. Given its high cost, it is essential to know if palivizumab continues to be effective in preventing severe RSV disease in children. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of palivizumab for preventing severe RSV infection in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases and two trials registers to 14 October 2021, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We searched Embase to October 2020, as we did not have access to this database for 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, comparing palivizumab given at a dose of 15 mg/kg once a month (maximum five doses) with placebo, no intervention or standard care in children 0 to 24 months of age from both genders, regardless of RSV infection history.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane's Screen4Me workflow to help assess the search results. Two review authors screened studies for selection, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcomes were hospitalisation due to RSV infection, all-cause mortality and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were hospitalisation due to respiratory-related illness, length of hospital stay, RSV infection, number of wheezing days, days of supplemental oxygen, intensive care unit length of stay and mechanical ventilation days. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies with  a total of 3343 participants. All studies were parallel RCTs, assessing the effects of 15 mg/kg of palivizumab every month up to five months compared to placebo or no intervention in an outpatient setting, although one study also included hospitalised infants. Most of the included studies were conducted in children with a high risk of RSV infection due to comorbidities like bronchopulmonary dysplasia and congenital heart disease. The risk of bias of outcomes across all studies was similar and predominately low.  Palivizumab reduces hospitalisation due to RSV infection at two years' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.64; 5 studies, 3343 participants; high certainty evidence). Based on 98 hospitalisations per 1000 participants in the placebo group, this corresponds to 43 (29 to 62) per 1000 participants in the palivizumab group. Palivizumab probably results in little to no difference in mortality at two years' follow-up (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.15; 5 studies, 3343 participants; moderate certainty evidence). Based on 23 deaths per 1000 participants in the placebo group, this corresponds to 16 (10 to 27) per 1000 participants in the palivizumab group. Palivizumab probably results in little to no difference in adverse events at 150 days' follow-up (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.39; 3 studies, 2831 participants; moderate certainty evidence). Based on 84 cases per 1000 participants in the placebo group, this corresponds to 91 (71 to 117) per 1000 participants in the palivizumab group. Palivizumab probably results in a slight reduction in hospitalisation due to respiratory-related illness at two years' follow-up (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.97; 5 studies, 3343 participants; moderate certainty evidence). Palivizumab may result in a large reduction in RSV infection at two years' follow-up (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.55; 3 studies, 554 participants; low certainty evidence). Based on 195 cases of RSV infection per 1000 participants in the placebo group, this corresponds to 64 (39 to 107) per 1000 participants in the palivizumab group. Palivizumab also reduces the number of wheezing days at one year's follow-up (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.44; 1 study, 429 participants; high certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that prophylaxis with palivizumab reduces hospitalisation due to RSV infection and results in little to no difference in mortality or adverse events. Moreover, palivizumab results in a slight reduction in hospitalisation due to respiratory-related illness and may result in a large reduction in RSV infections. Palivizumab also reduces the number of wheezing days. These results may be applicable to children with a high risk of RSV infection due to comorbidities. Further research is needed to establish the effect of palivizumab on children with other comorbidities known as risk factors for severe RSV disease (e.g. immune deficiencies) and other social determinants of the disease, including children living in low- and middle-income countries, tropical regions, children lacking breastfeeding, living in poverty, or members of families in overcrowded situations.

Minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A variety of minimally invasive treatments are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, it is unclear which treatments provide better results. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with BPH through a network meta-analysis. Our secondary objective was to obtain an estimate of relative ranking of these minimally invasive treatments, according to their effects. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 24 February 2021. We had no restrictions on language of publication or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of the following minimally invasive treatments, compared to TURP or sham treatment, on men with moderate to severe LUTS due to BPH: convective radiofrequency water vapor therapy (CRFWVT); prostatic arterial embolization (PAE); prostatic urethral lift (PUL); temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND); and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model for pair-wise comparisons and a frequentist network meta-analysis for combined estimates. We interpreted them according to Cochrane methods. We planned subgroup analyses by age, prostate volume, and severity of baseline symptoms. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to express dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs to express continuous data. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 trials involving 3017 men, mostly over age 50, with severe LUTS due to BPH. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low due to concerns regarding bias, imprecision, inconsistency (heterogeneity), and incoherence. Based on the network meta-analysis, results for our main outcomes were as follows. Urologic symptoms (19 studies, 1847 participants): PUL and PAE may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms scores (MD of International Prostate Symptoms Score [IPSS]) compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD range 0 to 35; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 1.47, 95% CI -4.00 to 6.93; PAE: 1.55, 95% CI -1.23 to 4.33; low-certainty evidence). CRFWVT, TUMT, and TIND may result in worse urologic symptoms scores compared to TURP at short-term follow-up, but the CIs include little to no difference (CRFWVT: 3.6, 95% CI -4.25 to 11.46; TUMT: 3.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 7.10; TIND: 7.5, 95% CI -0.68 to 15.69; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life (QoL) (13 studies, 1459 participants): All interventions may result in little to no difference in the QoL scores, compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; MD of IPSS-QoL score; MD range 0 to 6; higher scores indicate worse symptoms; PUL: 0.06, 95% CI -1.17 to 1.30; PAE: 0.09, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.75; CRFWVT: 0.37, 95% CI -1.45 to 2.20; TUMT: 0.65, 95% CI -0.48 to 1.78; TIND: 0.87, 95% CI -1.04 to 2.79; low-certainty evidence). Major adverse events (15 studies, 1573 participants): TUMT probably results in a large reduction of major adverse events compared to TURP (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.43; moderate-certainty evidence). PUL, CRFWVT, TIND and PAE may also result in a large reduction in major adverse events, but CIs include substantial benefits and harms at three months to 36 months; PUL: RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.22; CRFWVT: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.01 to 18.62; TIND: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.01 to 24.46; PAE: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.68; low-certainty evidence). Retreatment (10 studies, 799 participants): We are uncertain about the effects of PAE and PUL on retreatment compared to TURP (12 to 60 months; PUL: RR 2.39, 95% CI 0.51 to 11.1; PAE: RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 15.44; very low-certainty evidence). TUMT may result in higher retreatment rates (RR 9.71, 95% CI 2.35 to 40.13; low-certainty evidence). Erectile function (six studies, 640 participants): We are very uncertain of the effects of minimally invasive treatments on erectile function (MD of International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-5]; range 5 to 25; higher scores indicates better function; CRFWVT: 6.49, 95% CI -8.13 to 21.12; TIND: 5.19, 95% CI -9.36 to 19.74; PUL: 3.00, 95% CI -5.45 to 11.44; PAE: -0.03, 95% CI -6.38, 6.32; very low-certainty evidence). Ejaculatory dysfunction (eight studies, 461 participants): We are uncertain of the effects of PUL, PAE and TUMT on ejaculatory dysfunction compared to TURP (3 to 12 months; PUL: RR 0.05, 95 % CI 0.00 to 1.06; PAE: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.92; TUMT: RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). TURP is the reference treatment with the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms, QoL and retreatment, but the least favorable in terms of major adverse events, erectile function and ejaculatory function. Among minimally invasive procedures, PUL and PAE have the highest likelihood of being the most efficacious for urinary symptoms and QoL, TUMT for major adverse events, PUL for retreatment, CRFWVT and TIND for erectile function and PUL for ejaculatory function. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive treatments may result in similar or worse effects concerning urinary symptoms and QoL compared to TURP at short-term follow-up. They may result in fewer major adverse events, especially in the case of PUL and PAE; resulting in better rankings for symptoms scores. PUL may result in fewer retreatments compared to other interventions, especially TUMT, which had the highest retreatment rates at long-term follow-up. We are very uncertain about the effects of these interventions on erectile function. There was limited long-term data, especially for CRFWVT and TIND. Future high-quality studies with more extended follow-up, comparing different, active treatment modalities, and adequately reporting critical outcomes relevant to patients, including those related to sexual function, could provide more information on the relative effectiveness of these interventions.

Transurethral microwave thermotherapy for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the gold-standard treatment for alleviating urinary symptoms and improving urinary flow in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, the morbidity of TURP approaches 20%, and less invasive techniques have been developed for treating BPH. Transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) is an alternative, minimally-invasive treatment that delivers microwave energy to produce coagulation necrosis in prostatic tissue. This is an update of a review last published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of transurethral microwave thermotherapy for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings published up to 31 May 2021, with no restrictions by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of participants with BPH who underwent TUMT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage and undertook data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments of the certainty of the evidence (CoE). We considered review outcomes measured up to 12 months after randomization as short-term and beyond 12 months as long-term. Our main outcomes included: urologic symptoms scores, quality of life, major adverse events, retreatment, and ejaculatory and erectile function. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we identified no new RCTs, but we included data from studies excluded in the previous version of this review. We included 16 trials with 1919 participants, with a median age of 69 and moderate lower urinary tract symptoms. The certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was moderate-to-low, due to an overall high risk of bias across studies and imprecision (few participants and events). TUMT versus TURP Based on data from four studies with 306 participants, when compared to TURP, TUMT probably results in little to no difference in urologic symptom scores measured by the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) on a scale from 0 to 35, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 2.03; moderate certainty). There is likely to be little to no difference in the quality of life (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.47; 1 study, 136 participants, moderate certainty). TUMT likely results in fewer major adverse events (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.43; 6 studies, 525 participants, moderate certainty); based on 168 cases per 1000 men in the TURP group, this corresponds to 135 fewer (153 to 96 fewer) per 1000 men in the TUMT group. TUMT, however, probably results in a large increase in the need for retreatment (risk ratio (RR) 7.07, 95% CI 1.94 to 25.82; 5 studies, 337 participants, moderate certainty) (usually by repeated TUMT or TURP); based on zero cases per 1000 men in the TURP group, this corresponds to 90 more (40 to 150 more) per 1000 men in the TUMT group. There may be little to no difference in erectile function between these interventions (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.63; 5 studies, 337 participants; low certainty). However, TUMT may result in fewer cases of ejaculatory dysfunction compared to TURP (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.53; 4 studies, 241 participants; low certainty). TUMT versus sham Based on data from four studies with 483 participants we found that, when compared to sham, TUMT probably reduces urologic symptom scores using the IPSS at short-term follow-up (MD -5.40, 95% CI -6.97 to -3.84; moderate certainty). TUMT may cause little to no difference in the quality of life (MD -0.95, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.77; 2 studies, 347 participants; low certainty) as measured by the IPSS quality-of-life question on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating a worse quality of life. We are very uncertain about the effects on major adverse events, since most studies reported no events or isolated lesions of the urinary tract. TUMT may also reduce the need for retreatment compared to sham (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.88; 2 studies, 82 participants, low certainty); based on 194 retreatments per 1000 men in the sham group, this corresponds to 141 fewer (178 to 23 fewer) per 1000 men in the TUMT group. We are very uncertain of the effects on erectile and ejaculatory function (very low certainty), since we found isolated reports of impotence and ejaculatory disorders (anejaculation and hematospermia). There were no data available for the comparisons of TUMT versus convective radiofrequency water vapor therapy, prostatic urethral lift, prostatic arterial embolization or temporary implantable nitinol device. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: TUMT provides a similar reduction in urinary symptoms compared to the standard treatment (TURP), with fewer major adverse events and fewer cases of ejaculatory dysfunction at short-term follow-up. However, TUMT probably results in a large increase in retreatment rates. Study limitations and imprecision reduced the confidence we can place in these results. Furthermore, most studies were performed over 20 years ago. Given the emergence of newer minimally-invasive treatments, high-quality head-to-head trials with longer follow-up are needed to clarify their relative effectiveness. Patients' values and preferences, their comorbidities and the effects of other available minimally-invasive procedures, among other factors, can guide clinicians when choosing the optimal treatment for this condition.

Ventriculo-peritoneal shunting devices for hydrocephalus.

BACKGROUND: Hydrocephalus is a common neurological disorder, caused by a progressive accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) within the intracranial space that can lead to increased intracranial pressure, enlargement of the ventricles (ventriculomegaly) and, consequently, to brain damage. Ventriculo-peritoneal shunt systems are the mainstay therapy for this condition, however there are different types of shunt systems. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and adverse effects of conventional and complex shunt devices for CSF diversion in people with hydrocephalus. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2020 Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to February 2020); Embase (Elsevier) (1974 to February 2020); Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) (1980 to February 2020); ClinicalTrials.gov; and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised trials of different types of ventriculo-peritoneal shunting devices for people with hydrocephalus. Primary outcomes included: treatment failure, adverse events and mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened studies for selection, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Due to the scarcity of data, we performed a Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) incorporating GRADE for the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies with 962 participants assessing the effects of standard valves compared to anti-syphon valves, other types of standard valves, self-adjusting CSF flow-regulating valves and external differential programmable pressure valves. All included studies started in a hospital setting and offered ambulatory follow-up. Most studies were conducted in infants or children with hydrocephalus from diverse causes. The certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was low to very low. 1. Standard valve versus anti-syphon valve Three studies with 296 randomised participants were included under this comparison. We are uncertain about the incidence of treatment failure in participants with standard valve and anti-syphon valves (very low certainty of the evidence). The incidence of adverse events may be similar in those with standard valves (range 0 to 1.9%) and anti-syphon valves (range 0 to 2.9%) (low certainty of the evidence). Mortality may be similar in those with standard valves (0%) and anti-syphon valves (0.9%) (RD 0.01%, 95% CI -0.02% to 0.03%, low certainty of the evidence). Ventricular size and head circumference may be similar in those with standard valves and anti-syphon valves (low certainty of the evidence). None of the included studies reported the quality of life of participants. 2. Comparison between different types of standard valves Two studies with 174 randomised participants were included under this comparison. We are uncertain about the incidence of treatment failure in participants with different types of standard valves (early postoperative period: RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.27; at 12 months follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.92, very low certainty of the evidence). None of the included studies reported adverse events beyond those included under "treatment failure". We are uncertain about the effects of different types of standard valves on mortality (range 2% to 17%, very low certainty of the evidence). The included studies did not report the effects of these interventions on quality of life, ventricular size reduction or head circumference. 3. Standard valve versus self-adjusting CSF flow-regulating valve One study with 229 randomised participants addressed this comparison. The incidence of treatment failure may be similar in those with standard valves (42.98%) and self-adjusting CSF flow-regulating valves (39.13%) (low certainty of the evidence). The incidence of adverse events may be similar in those with standard valves (range 0 to 1.9%) and those with self-adjusting CSF flow-regulating valves (range 0 to 7.2%) (low certainty of the evidence). The included study reported no deaths in either group in the postoperative period. Beyond the early postoperative period, the authors stated that nine patients died (no disaggregated data by each type of intervention was available, low certainty of the evidence). The included studies did not report the effects of these interventions on quality of life, ventricular size reduction or head circumference. 4. External differential programmable pressure valve versus non-programmable valve One study with 377 randomised participants addressed this comparison. The incidence of treatment failure may be similar in those with programmable valves (52%) and non-programmable valves (52%)  (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.24, low certainty of the evidence). The incidence of adverse events may be similar in those with programmable valves (6.19%) and non-programmable valves (6.01%) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.15, low certainty of the evidence). The included study did not report the effect of these interventions on mortality, quality of life or head circumference. Ventricular size reduction may be similar in those with programmable valves and non-programmable valves (low certainty of the evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Standard shunt valves for hydrocephalus compared to anti-syphon or self-adjusting CSF flow-regulating valves may cause little to no difference on the main outcomes of this review, however we are very uncertain due to the low to very low certainty of evidence. Similarly, different types of standard valves and external differential programmable pressure valves versus non-programmable valves may be associated with similar outcomes. Nevertheless, this review did not include valves with the latest technology, for which we need high-quality randomised controlled trials focusing on patient-important outcomes including costs.

Interventions for chronic pruritus of unknown origin.

BACKGROUND: Pruritus is a sensation that leads to the desire to scratch; its origin is unknown in 8% to 15% of affected patients. The prevalence of chronic pruritus of unknown origin (CPUO) in individuals with generalised pruritus ranges from 3.6% to 44.5%, with highest prevalence among the elderly. When the origin of pruritus is known, its management may be straightforward if an effective treatment for the causal disease is available. Treatment of CPUO is particularly difficult due to its unknown pathophysiology. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for CPUO in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following up to July 2019: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registries. We checked the reference lists of included studies for additional references to relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought to include randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed interventions for CPUO, as defined in category VI ('Other pruritus of undetermined origin, or chronic pruritus of unknown origin') of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI) classification, in children and adults. Eligible interventions were non-pharmacological or topical or systemic pharmacological interventions, and eligible comparators were another active treatment, placebo, sham procedures, or no treatment or equivalent (e.g. waiting list). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were 'Patient- or parent-reported pruritus intensity' and 'Adverse events'. Our secondary outcomes were 'Health-related quality of life', 'Sleep disturbances', 'Depression', and 'Patient satisfaction'. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We found there was an absence of evidence for the main interventions of interest: emollient creams, cooling lotions, topical corticosteroids, topical antidepressants, systemic antihistamines, systemic antidepressants, systemic anticonvulsants, and phototherapy. We included one study with 257 randomised (253 analysed) participants, aged 18 to 65 years; 60.6% were female. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of three different doses of oral serlopitant (5 mg, 1 mg, and 0.25 mg, once daily for six weeks) compared to placebo for severe chronic pruritus; 25 US centres participated (clinical research centres and universities). All outcomes were measured at the end of treatment (six weeks from baseline), except adverse events, which were monitored throughout. A pharmaceutical company funded this study. Fifty-five per cent of participants suffered from CPUO, and approximately 45% presented a dermatological diagnosis (atopic dermatitis/eczema 37.3%, psoriasis 6.7%, acne 3.6%, among other diagnoses). We unsuccessfully attempted to retrieve outcome data from study authors for the subgroup of participants with CPUO. Participants had pruritus for six weeks or longer. Total study duration was 10 weeks. Participants who received serlopitant 5 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS; a reduction in VAS score indicates improvement) compared to placebo (126 participants, risk ratio (RR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 3.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant 5 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (127 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.50); health-related quality of life (as measured by the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI); a higher score indicates greater impairment; 127 participants; mean difference (MD) -4.20, 95% CI -11.68 to 3.28); and sleep disturbances (people with insomnia measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Symptom Questionnaire-Insomnia (PSSQ-I), a dichotomous measure; 128 participants; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.01). Participants who received serlopitant 1 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by VAS compared to placebo; however, the 95% CI indicates that there may also be little to no difference between groups (126 participants; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.54; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant 1 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (128 participants; RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.47); health-related quality of life (DLQI; 128 participants; MD -6.90, 95% CI -14.38 to 0.58); and sleep disturbances (PSSQ-I; 128 participants; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.84). Participants who received serlopitant 0.25 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by VAS compared to placebo; however, the 95% CI indicates that there may also be little to no difference between groups (127 participants; RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.77; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant 0.25 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (127 participants; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.24); health-related quality of life (DLQI; 127 participants; MD -5.70, 95% CI -13.18 to 1.78); and sleep disturbances (PSSQ-I; 127 participants; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.17). The most commonly reported adverse events were somnolence, diarrhoea, headache, and nasopharyngitis, among others. Our included study did not measure depression or patient satisfaction. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for all outcomes due to indirectness (only 55% of study participants had CPUO) and imprecision. We downgraded outcomes other than patient-reported pruritus intensity a further level due to concerns regarding risk of bias in selection of the reported result and some concerns with risk of bias due to missing outcome data (sleep disturbances only). We deemed risk of bias to be generally low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found lack of evidence to address our review question: for most of our interventions of interest, we found no eligible studies. The neurokinin 1 receptor (NK1R) antagonist serlopitant was the only intervention that we could assess. One study provided low-certainty evidence suggesting that serlopitant may reduce pruritus intensity when compared with placebo. We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant on other outcomes, as certainty of the evidence is very low. More studies with larger sample sizes, focused on patients with CPUO, are needed. Healthcare professionals, patients, and other stakeholders may have to rely on indirect evidence related to other forms of chronic pruritus when deciding between the main interventions currently used for this condition.

Pharmacological interventions for treating chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common disorder in which the two main clinical features are pelvic pain and lower urinary tract symptoms. There are currently many approaches for its management, using both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. The National Institute of Health - Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score is a validated measure commonly used to measure CP/CPPS symptoms. We considered a 25% decrease of NIH-CPSI baseline score or a six-point reduction as MCID. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological therapies for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, trial registries, grey literature and conference proceedings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. The date of the latest search of all databases was July 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with a diagnosis of CP/CPPS. We included all available pharmacological interventions compared to placebo or in head-to-head comparisons. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risks of bias of included studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence (QoE) using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 99 unique studies in 9119 men with CP/CPPS, with assessments of 16 types of pharmacological interventions. Unless stated otherwise, our comparisons were based on short-term follow-up (less than 12 months). Most studies did not specify their funding sources; 21 studies reported funding from pharmaceutical companies.1. Alpha blockers: (24 studies, 2061 participants). We are uncertain about the effects of these drugs on prostatitis symptoms when compared to placebo at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) in total NIH-CPSI score -5.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.41 to -2.61; 18 studies, 1524 participants, very low QoE) and at long-term follow-up (MD -5.60, 95% CI -10.89 to -0.32; 4 studies, 235 participants, very low QoE). Alpha blockers may be associated with an increased incidence of adverse events, such as dizziness and postural hypotension (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.34; 19 studies, 1588 participants; low QoE). Alpha blockers probably result in little to no difference in sexual dysfunction, quality of life and anxiety and depression (moderate to low QoE).2. 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARI): (2 studies, 177 participants). Finasteride probably reduces prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI score MD -4.60, 95% CI -5.43 to -3.77; 1 study, 64 participants; moderate QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence of adverse events (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.3. Antibiotics: (6 studies, 693 participants). Antibiotics (quinolones) may reduce prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.43, 95% CI -4.72 to -0.15; 5 studies, 372 participants; low QoE) and are probably not associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (moderate QoE). Antibiotics probably result in little to no difference in sexual dysfunction and quality of life (moderate QoE). There was no information on anxiety or depression.4. Anti-inflammatories: (7 studies, 585 participants). Anti-inflammatories may reduce prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI scores MD -2.50, 95% CI -3.74 to -1.26; 7 studies, 585 participants; low QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.5. Phytotherapy: (7 studies, 551 participants). Phytotherapy may reduce prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI scores MD -5.02, 95% CI -6.81 to -3.23; 5 studies, 320 participants; low QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). Phytotherapy may not improve sexual dysfunction (low QoE). There was no information on quality of life or anxiety and depression.6. Botulinum toxin A (BTA): Intraprostatic BTA injection (1 study, 60 participants) may cause a large reduction in prostatitis symptom (NIH-CPSI scores MD -25.80, 95% CI -30.15 to -21.45), whereas pelvic floor muscle BTA injection (1 study, 29 participants) may not reduce prostatitis symptoms (low QoE). Both comparisons used a placebo injection. These interventions may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.7. Allopurinol: (2 studies, 110 participants). Allopurinol may result in little to no difference in prostatitis symptoms and adverse events when compared to placebo (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.8. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM): (7 studies, 835 participants); TCM may reduce prostatitis symptoms (NIH-CPSI score, MD -3.13, 95% CI -4.99 to -1.28; low QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). TCM probably does not improve sexual dysfunction (moderate QoE) and may not improve symptoms of anxiety and depression (low QoE). There was no information on quality of life.The most frequent reasons for downgrading the QoE were study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. We found few trials with active comparators. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-quality evidence that alpha blockers, antibiotics, 5-ARI, anti-inflammatories, phytotherapy, intraprostatic BTA injection, and traditional Chinese medicine may cause a reduction in prostatitis symptoms without an increased incidence of adverse events in the short term, except for alpha blockers which may be associated with an increase in mild adverse events. We found few trials with active comparators and little evidence of the effects of these drugs on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression. Future clinical trials should include a full report of their methods, including adequate masking, consistent assessment of all patient-important outcomes, including potential treatment-related adverse events, and appropriate sample sizes.

Prevención primaria cardiovascular y toma de decisiones compartida / Cardiovascular primary prevention and shared decision making

En los últimos años las guías de práctica clínica para la prevención de eventos cardiovasculares redujeron el umbral para la indicación de hipolipemiantes (estatinas), aumentando la población susceptible de recibir estos fármacos. A su vez, estas mismas guías promueven que los médicos discutan junto al paciente los riesgos y beneficios del tratamiento farmacológico, a menudo mediante el modelo de toma de decisiones compartida (TDC). Sin embargo, la aplicación de este modelo se enfrenta con algunos desafíos. En el siguiente artículo nos propusimos discutir las dificultades para implementar este modelo en nuestro medio a la hora de realizar la prevención primaria de eventos cardiovasculares, tomando como punto de partida un caso clínico donde ilustramos la aplicación de la TDC, usando la herramienta desarrollada por la Clínica Mayo para asistir este proceso

In recent years, clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular events have lowered the threshold for the prescription of lipid-lowering agents (statins), increasing the population that could receive these medications. Likewise, these guidelines also encourage that doctors and patients discuss together the risks and benefits of the drug treatment, often using the shared decision making (SDM) model. However, the application of this model faces some challenges. The aim of this article was to discuss the difficulties in implementing this model in our setting as regards the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. We used a clinical case as a starting point to illustrate the application of SDM using the tool developed by the Mayo Clinic to aid this process

Interventions for treating acute high altitude illness.

BACKGROUND: Acute high altitude illness is defined as a group of cerebral and pulmonary syndromes that can occur during travel to high altitudes. It is more common above 2500 metres, but can be seen at lower elevations, especially in susceptible people. Acute high altitude illness includes a wide spectrum of syndromes defined under the terms 'acute mountain sickness' (AMS), 'high altitude cerebral oedema' and 'high altitude pulmonary oedema'. There are several interventions available to treat this condition, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological; however, there is a great uncertainty regarding their benefits and harms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness, and safety of interventions (non-pharmacological and pharmacological), as monotherapy or in any combination, for treating acute high altitude illness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, Wanfang database and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing studies on 10 August 2017. We did not apply any language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for individuals suffering from acute high altitude illness: acute mountain sickness, high altitude pulmonary oedema or high altitude cerebral oedema. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of study reports, the risk of bias for each and performed the data extraction. We resolved disagreements through discussion with a third author. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies enrolling a total of 468 participants. We identified two ongoing studies. All studies included adults, and two studies included both teenagers and adults. The 13 studies took place in high altitude areas, mostly in the European Alps. Twelve studies included participants with acute mountain sickness, and one study included participants with high altitude pulmonary oedema. Follow-up was usually less than one day. We downgraded the quality of the evidence in most cases due to risk of bias and imprecision. We report results for the main comparisons as follows.Non-pharmacological interventions (3 studies, 124 participants)All-cause mortality and complete relief of AMS symptoms were not reported in the three included trials. One study in 64 participants found that a simulated descent of 193 millibars versus 20 millibars may reduce the average of symptoms to 2.5 vs 3.1 units after 12 hours of treatment (clinical score ranged from 0 to 11 ‒ worse; reduction of 0.6 points on average with the intervention; low quality of evidence). In addition, no complications were found with use of hyperbaric chambers versus supplementary oxygen (one study; 29 participants; low-quality evidence).Pharmacological interventions (11 trials, 375 participants)All-cause mortality was not reported in the 11 included trials. One trial found a greater proportion of participants with complete relief of AMS symptoms after 12 and 16 hours when dexamethasone was administered in comparison with placebo (47.1% versus 0%, respectively; one study; 35 participants; low quality of evidence). Likewise, when acetazolamide was compared with placebo, the effects on symptom severity was uncertain (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.15, 95% CI -2.56 to 0.27; 2 studies, 25 participants; low-quality evidence). One trial of dexamethasone in comparison with placebo in 35 participants found a reduction in symptom severity (difference on change in the AMS score: 3.7 units reported by authors; moderate quality of evidence). The effects from two additional trials comparing gabapentin with placebo and magnesium with placebo on symptom severity at the end of treatment were uncertain. For gabapentin versus placebo: mean visual analogue scale (VAS) score of 2.92 versus 4.75, respectively; 24 participants; low quality of evidence. For magnesium versus placebo: mean scores of 9 and 10.3 units, respectively; 25 participants; low quality of evidence). The trials did not find adverse events from either treatment (low quality of evidence). One trial comparing magnesium sulphate versus placebo found that flushing was a frequent event in the magnesium sulphate arm (percentage of flushing: 75% versus 7.7%, respectively; one study; 25 participants; low quality of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited available evidence to determine the effects of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions in treating acute high altitude illness. Low-quality evidence suggests that dexamethasone and acetazolamide might reduce AMS score compared to placebo. However, the clinical benefits and harms related to these potential interventions remain unclear. Overall, the evidence is of limited practical significance in the clinical field. High-quality research in this field is needed, since most trials were poorly conducted and reported.

Prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support for critically-ill adults.

BACKGROUND: There are controversies about the amount of calories and the type of nutritional support that should be given to critically-ill people. Several authors advocate the potential benefits of hypocaloric nutrition support, but the evidence is inconclusive. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support in comparison with standard nutrition support for critically-ill adults SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS (from inception to 20 June 2017) with a specific strategy for each database. We also assessed three websites, conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted leaders in the field and the pharmaceutical industry for undetected/unpublished studies. There was no restriction by date, language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing hypocaloric nutrition support to normo- or hypercaloric nutrition support or no nutrition support (e.g. fasting) in adults hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We meta-analysed data for comparisons in which clinical heterogeneity was low. We conducted prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and post hoc analyses, including meta-regression. Our primary outcomes were: mortality (death occurred during the ICU and hospital stay, or 28- to 30-day all-cause mortality); length of stay (days stayed in the ICU and in the hospital); and Infectious complications. Secondary outcomes included: length of mechanical ventilation. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 15 trials, with a total of 3129 ICU participants from university-associated hospitals in the USA, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Greece, Germany and Iran. There are two ongoing studies. Participants suffered from medical and surgical conditions, with a variety of inclusion criteria. Four studies used parenteral nutrition and nine studies used only enteral nutrition; it was unclear whether the remaining two used parenteral nutrition. Most of them could not achieve the proposed caloric targets, resulting in small differences in the administered calories between intervention and control groups. Most studies were funded by the US government or non-governmental associations, but three studies received funding from industry. Five studies did not specify their funding sources.The included studies suffered from important clinical and statistical heterogeneity. This heterogeneity did not allow us to report pooled estimates of the primary and secondary outcomes, so we have described them narratively.When comparing hypocaloric nutrition support with a control nutrition support, for hospital mortality (9 studies, 1775 participants), the risk ratios ranged from 0.23 to 5.54; for ICU mortality (4 studies, 1291 participants) the risk ratios ranged from 0.81 to 5.54, and for mortality at 30 days (7 studies, 2611 participants) the risk ratios ranged from 0.79 to 3.00. Most of these estimates included the null value. The quality of the evidence was very low due to unclear or high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.Participants who received hypocaloric nutrition support compared to control nutrition support had a range of mean hospital lengths of stay of 15.70 days lower to 10.70 days higher (10 studies, 1677 participants), a range of mean ICU lengths of stay 11.00 days lower to 5.40 days higher (11 studies, 2942 participants) and a range of mean lengths of mechanical ventilation of 13.20 days lower to 8.36 days higher (12 studies, 3000 participants). The quality of the evidence for this outcome was very low due to unclear or high risk of bias in most studies, inconsistency and imprecision.The risk ratios for infectious complications (10 studies, 2804 participants) of each individual study ranged from 0.54 to 2.54. The quality of the evidence for this outcome was very low due to unclear or high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecisionWe were not able to explain the causes of the observed heterogeneity using subgroup and sensitivity analyses or meta-regression. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The included studies had substantial clinical heterogeneity. We found very low-quality evidence about the effects of prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support on mortality in hospital, in the ICU and at 30 days, as well as in length of hospital and ICU stay, infectious complications and the length of mechanical ventilation. For these outcomes there is uncertainty about the effects of prescribed hypocaloric nutrition, since the range of estimates includes both appreciable benefits and harms.Given these limitations, results must be interpreted with caution in the clinical field, considering the unclear balance of the risks and harms of this intervention. Future research addressing the clinical heterogeneity of participants and interventions, study limitations and sample size could clarify the effects of this intervention.

Non-pharmacological interventions for treating chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common disorder in which the two main clinical features are pelvic pain and lower urinary tract symptoms. There are currently many approaches for its management, using both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. The National Institute of Health - Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score is a validated measure commonly used to measure CP/CPPS symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-pharmacological therapies for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. The date of the latest search of all databases was August 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with a diagnosis of CP/CPPS. We included all available non-pharmacological interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies, performed statistical analyses and rated quality of evidence (QoE) according to the GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 unique studies with 3290 men with CP/CPPS across 23 comparisons.1. Acupuncture: (three studies, 204 participants) based on short-term follow-up, acupuncture probably leads to clinically meaningful reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with sham procedure (mean difference (MD) in total NIH-CPSI score -5.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.32 to -4.26, high QoE). Acupuncture may result in little to no difference in adverse events (low QoE). Acupuncture may not reduce sexual dysfunction when compared with sham procedure (MD in the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) Scale -0.50, 95% CI -3.46 to 2.46, low QoE). Acupuncture may also lead to a clinically meaningful reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with standard medical therapy (MD -6.05, 95% CI -7.87 to -4.24, two studies, 78 participants, low QoE). We found no information regarding quality of life, depression or anxiety.2. Lifestyle modifications: (one study, 100 participants) based on short-term follow-up, lifestyle modifications may be associated with a reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with control (risk ratio (RR) for improvement in NIH-CPSI scores 3.90, 95% CI 2.20 to 6.92, very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events, sexual dysfunction, quality of life, depression or anxiety.3. Physical activity: (one study, 85 participants) based on short-term follow-up, a physical activity programme may cause a small reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.69 to -0.31, low QoE). This programme may not reduce anxiety or depression (low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events, sexual dysfunction or quality of life.4. Prostatic massage: (two studies, 115 participants) based on short-term follow-up, we are uncertain whether the prostatic massage reduces or increases prostatitis symptoms compared with control (very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events, sexual dysfunction, quality of life, depression or anxiety.5. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy: (three studies, 157 participants) based on short-term follow-up, extracorporeal shockwave therapy reduces prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -6.18, 95% CI -7.46 to -4.89, high QoE). These results may not be sustained at medium-term follow-up (low QoE). This treatment may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events (low QoE). This treatment probably improves sexual dysfunction (MD in the IIEF Scale MD 3.34, 95% CI 2.68 to 4.00, one study, 60 participants, moderate QoE). We found no information regarding quality of life, depression or anxiety.6. Transrectal thermotherapy compared to medical therapy: (two studies, 237 participants) based on short-term follow-up, transrectal thermotherapy alone or in combination with medical therapy may decrease prostatitis symptoms slightly when compared with medical therapy alone (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -3.82 to -1.18, low QoE). One included study reported that participants may experience transient adverse events. We found no information regarding sexual dysfunction, quality of life, depression or anxiety.7. Other interventions: there is uncertainty about the effects of most of the other interventions included in this review. We found no information regarding psychological support or prostatic surgery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of moderate quality evidence, this review found that some non-pharmacological interventions such as acupuncture and extracorporeal shockwave therapy are likely to result in a decrease in prostatitis symptoms and may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse event. The QoE for most other comparisons was predominantly low. Future clinical trials should include a full report of their methods including adequate masking, consistent assessment of all patient-important outcomes including potential treatment-related adverse events and appropriate sample sizes.

Prostanoids for critical limb ischaemia.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality due to cardiovascular disease in the general population. Although numerous treatments have been adopted for patients at different disease stages, no option other than amputation is available for patients presenting with critical limb ischaemia (CLI) unsuitable for rescue or reconstructive intervention. In this regard, prostanoids have been proposed as a therapeutic alternative, with the aim of increasing blood supply to the limb with occluded arteries through their vasodilatory, antithrombotic, and anti-inflammatory effects. This is an update of a review first published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of prostanoids in patients with CLI unsuitable for rescue or reconstructive intervention. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (January 2017) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1). In addition, we searched trials registries (January 2017) and contacted pharmaceutical manufacturers, in our efforts to identify unpublished data and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials describing the efficacy and safety of prostanoids compared with placebo or other pharmacological control treatments for patients presenting with CLI without chance of rescue or reconstructive intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trials for eligibility and methodological quality, and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consultation with a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: For this update, 15 additional studies fulfilled selection criteria. We included in this review 33 randomised controlled trials with 4477 participants; 21 compared different prostanoids versus placebo, seven compared prostanoids versus other agents, and five conducted head-to-head comparisons using two different prostanoids.We found low-quality evidence that suggests no clear difference in the incidence of cardiovascular mortality between patients receiving prostanoids and those given placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.58). We found high-quality evidence showing that prostanoids have no effect on the incidence of total amputations when compared with placebo (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09). Adverse events were more frequent with prostanoids than with placebo (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.79 to 2.50; moderate-quality evidence). The most commonly reported adverse events were headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, flushing, and hypotension. We found moderate-quality evidence showing that prostanoids reduced rest-pain (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.59) and promoted ulcer healing (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.48) when compared with placebo, although these small beneficial effects were diluted when we performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded studies at high risk of bias. Additionally, we found evidence of low to very low quality suggesting the effects of prostanoids versus other active agents or versus other prostanoids because studies conducting these comparisons were few and we judged them to be at high risk of bias. None of the included studies assessed quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found high-quality evidence showing that prostanoids have no effect on the incidence of total amputations when compared against placebo. Moderate-quality evidence showed small beneficial effects of prostanoids for rest-pain relief and ulcer healing when compared with placebo. Additionally, moderate-quality evidence showed a greater incidence of adverse effects with the use of prostanoids, and low-quality evidence suggests that prostanoids have no effect on cardiovascular mortality when compared with placebo. None of the included studies reported quality of life measurements. The balance between benefits and harms associated with use of prostanoids in patients with critical limb ischaemia with no chance of reconstructive intervention is uncertain; therefore careful assessment of therapeutic alternatives should be considered. Main reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence were high risk of attrition bias and imprecision of effect estimates.

Non-pharmacological interventions for treating chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common disorder in which the two main clinical features are pelvic pain and lower urinary tract symptoms. There are currently many approaches for its management, using both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. The National Institute of Health - Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score is a validated measure commonly used to measure CP/CPPS symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of non-pharmacological therapies for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. The date of the latest search of all databases was August 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with a diagnosis of CP/CPPS. We included all available non-pharmacological interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies, performed statistical analyses and rated quality of evidence (QoE) according to the GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 38 unique studies with 3290 men with CP/CPPS across 23 comparisons.1. Acupuncture: (three studies, 204 participants) based on short-term follow-up, acupuncture reduces prostatitis symptoms in an appreciable number of participants compared with sham procedure (mean difference (MD) in total NIH-CPSI score -5.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.32 to -4.26, high QoE). Acupuncture likely results in little to no difference in adverse events (moderate QoE). It probably also decreases prostatitis symptoms compared with standard medical therapy in an appreciable number of participants (MD -6.05, 95% CI -7.87 to -4.24, two studies, 78 participants, moderate QoE).2. Circumcision: (one study, 713 participants) based on short-term follow-up, early circumcision probably decreases prostatitis symptoms slightly (NIH-CPSI score MD -3.00, 95% CI -3.82 to -2.18, moderate QoE) and may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events compared with control (a waiting list to be circumcised, low QoE).3. Electromagnetic chair: (two studies, 57 participants) based on short-term follow-up, we are uncertain of the effects of the use of an electromagnetic chair on prostatitis symptoms. It may be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events compared with sham procedure (low to very low QoE).4. Lifestyle modifications: (one study, 100 participants) based on short-term follow-up, lifestyle modifications may be associated with a greater improvement in prostatitis symptoms in an appreciable number of participants compared with control (risk ratio (RR) for improvement in NIH-CPSI scores 3.90, 95% CI 2.20 to 6.92, very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events.5. Physical activity: (one study, 85 participants) based on short-term follow-up, a physical activity programme may cause a small reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.69 to -0.31, low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events.6. Prostatic massage: (two studies, 115 participants) based on short-term follow-up, we are uncertain whether the prostatic massage reduces or increases prostatitis symptoms compared with control (very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events.7. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy: (three studies, 157 participants) based on short-term follow-up, extracorporeal shockwave therapy reduces prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -6.18, 95% CI -7.46 to -4.89, high QoE). These results may not be sustained at medium-term follow-up (low QoE). This treatment may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events (low QoE).8. Transrectal thermotherapy compared to medical therapy: (two studies, 237 participants) based on short-term follow-up, transrectal thermotherapy alone or in combination with medical therapy may decrease prostatitis symptoms slightly when compared with medical therapy alone (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -3.82 to -1.18, low QoE). One included study reported that participants may experience transient adverse events.9. Other interventions: there is uncertainty about the effects of other interventions included in this review. We found no information regarding psychological support or prostatic surgery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some of the interventions can decrease prostatitis symptoms in an appreciable number without a greater incidence of adverse events. The QoE was mostly low. Future clinical trials should include a full report of their methods including adequate masking, consistent assessment of all patient-important outcomes including potential treatment-related adverse events and appropriate sample sizes.

Vaccines for the common cold.

BACKGROUND: The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore throat, and fever (usually < 37.8º C). The widespread morbidity caused by the common cold worldwide is related to its ubiquitousness rather than its severity. The development of vaccines for the common cold has been difficult because of antigenic variability of the common cold virus and the indistinguishable multiple other viruses and even bacteria acting as infective agents. There is uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and previously updated in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (September 2016), MEDLINE (1948 to September 2016), Embase (1974 to September 2016), CINAHL (1981 to September 2016), and LILACS (1982 to September 2016). We also searched three trials registers for ongoing studies and four websites for additional trials (February 2017). We included no language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccines compared with placebo to prevent the common cold in healthy people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted trial data. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by consulting a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: We found no additional RCTs for inclusion in this update. This review includes one RCT dating from the 1960s with an overall high risk of bias. The RCT included 2307 healthy participants, all of whom were included in analyses. This trial compared the effect of an adenovirus vaccine against placebo. No statistically significant difference in common cold incidence was found: there were 13 (1.14%) events in 1139 participants in the vaccines group and 14 (1.19%) events in 1168 participants in the placebo group (risk ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 2.02; P = 0.90). No adverse events related to the live vaccine were reported. The quality of the evidence was low due to limitations in methodological quality and a wide 95% confidence interval. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review was based on one study with low-quality evidence. We found no conclusive results to support the use of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people compared with placebo. We identified a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Any future trials on medical treatments for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition. Outcome measures should include common cold incidence, vaccine safety, and mortality related to the vaccine.