Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 5.632
Filtrar
1.
BMJ ; 372: n48, 2021 02 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33531350

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To identify redundant clinical trials evaluating statin treatment in patients with coronary artery disease from mainland China, and to estimate the number of extra major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) experienced by participants not treated with statins in those trials. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: 2577 randomized clinical trials comparing statin treatment with placebo or no treatment in patients with coronary artery disease from mainland China, searched from bibliographic databases to December 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 250 810 patients with any type of coronary artery disease who were enrolled in the 2577 randomized clinical trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Redundant clinical trials were defined as randomized clinical trials that initiated or continued recruiting after 2008 (ie, one year after statin treatment was strongly recommended by clinical practice guidelines). The primary outcome is the number of extra MACEs that were attributable to the deprivation of statins among patients in the control groups of redundant clinical trials-that is, the number of extra MACEs that could have been prevented if patients were given statins. Cumulative meta-analyses were also conducted to establish the time points when statins were shown to have a statistically significant effect on coronary artery disease. RESULTS: 2045 redundant clinical trials were identified published between 2008 and 2019, comprising 101 486 patients in the control groups not treated with statins for 24 638 person years. 3470 (95% confidence interval 3230 to 3619) extra MACEs were reported, including 559 (95% confidence interval 506 to 612) deaths, 973 (95% confidence interval 897 to 1052) patients with new or recurrent myocardial infarction, 161 (132 to 190) patients with stroke, 83 (58 to 105) patients requiring revascularization, 398 (352 to 448) patients with heart failure, 1197 (1110 to 1282) patients with recurrent or deteriorated angina pectoris, and 99 (95% confidence interval 69 to 129) unspecified MACEs. CONCLUSIONS: Of more than 2000 redundant clinical trials on statins in patients with coronary artery disease identified from mainland China, an extra 3000 MACEs, including nearly 600 deaths, were experienced by participants not treated with statins in these trials. The scale of redundancy necessitates urgent reform to protect patients.


Assuntos
Doença da Artéria Coronariana/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Redutases/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/normas , China , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/mortalidade , Estudos Transversais , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Projetos de Pesquisa/normas , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto
2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD013040, 2021 01 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33511633

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation is a proven, effective intervention for people with chronic respiratory diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease (ILD) and bronchiectasis. However, relatively few people attend or complete a program, due to factors including a lack of programs, issues associated with travel and transport, and other health issues. Traditionally, pulmonary rehabilitation is delivered in-person on an outpatient basis at a hospital or other healthcare facility (referred to as centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation). Newer, alternative modes of pulmonary rehabilitation delivery include home-based models and the use of telehealth. Telerehabilitation is the delivery of rehabilitation services at a distance, using information and communication technology. To date, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of the clinical efficacy or safety of telerehabilitation, or its ability to improve uptake and access to rehabilitation services, for people with chronic respiratory disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; six databases including MEDLINE and Embase; and three trials registries, up to 30 November 2020. We checked reference lists of all included studies for additional references, and handsearched relevant respiratory journals and meeting abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of telerehabilitation for the delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation were eligible for inclusion. The telerehabilitation intervention was required to include exercise training, with at least 50% of the rehabilitation intervention being delivered by telerehabilitation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias for all studies, and used the ROBINS-I tool to assess bias in non-randomised controlled clinical trials. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. Comparisons were telerehabilitation compared to traditional in-person (centre-based) pulmonary rehabilitation, and telerehabilitation compared to no rehabilitation. We analysed studies of telerehabilitation for maintenance rehabilitation separately from trials of telerehabilitation for initial primary pulmonary rehabilitation. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 15 studies (32 reports) with 1904 participants, using five different models of telerehabilitation. Almost all (99%) participants had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Three studies were controlled clinical trials. For primary pulmonary rehabilitation, there was probably little or no difference between telerehabilitation and in-person pulmonary rehabilitation for exercise capacity measured as 6-Minute Walking Distance (6MWD) (mean difference (MD) 0.06 metres (m), 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.82 m to 10.94 m; 556 participants; four studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference for quality of life measured with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -1.26, 95% CI -3.97 to 1.45; 274 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence), or for breathlessness on the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) dyspnoea domain score (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.40; 426 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). Participants were more likely to complete a program of telerehabilitation, with a 93% completion rate (95% CI 90% to 96%), compared to a 70% completion rate for in-person rehabilitation. When compared to no rehabilitation control, trials of primary telerehabilitation may increase exercise capacity on 6MWD (MD 22.17 m, 95% CI -38.89 m to 83.23 m; 94 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence) and may also increase 6MWD when delivered as maintenance rehabilitation (MD 78.1 m, 95% CI 49.6 m to 106.6 m; 209 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects of telerehabilitation were noted over and above any reported for in-person rehabilitation or no rehabilitation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that primary pulmonary rehabilitation, or maintenance rehabilitation, delivered via telerehabilitation for people with chronic respiratory disease achieves outcomes similar to those of traditional centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation, with no safety issues identified. However, the certainty of the evidence provided by this review is limited by the small number of studies, of varying telerehabilitation models, with relatively few participants. Future research should consider the clinical effect of telerehabilitation for individuals with chronic respiratory diseases other than COPD, the duration of benefit of telerehabilitation beyond the period of the intervention, and the economic cost of telerehabilitation.


Assuntos
Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/reabilitação , Transtornos Respiratórios/reabilitação , Telerreabilitação/métodos , Viés , Doença Crônica , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Dispneia/reabilitação , Tolerância ao Exercício/fisiologia , Humanos , Internet/estatística & dados numéricos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados não Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Cooperação do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Telefone/estatística & dados numéricos , Telerreabilitação/estatística & dados numéricos , Comunicação por Videoconferência/estatística & dados numéricos , Teste de Caminhada/estatística & dados numéricos
3.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD013496, 2021 01 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33512717

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Lifestyle changes are at the forefront of preventing the disease. This includes advice such as increasing physical activity and having a healthy balanced diet to reduce risk factors. Intermittent fasting (IF) is a popular dietary plan involving restricting caloric intake to certain days in the week such as alternate day fasting and periodic fasting, and restricting intake to a number of hours in a given day, otherwise known as time-restricted feeding. IF is being researched for its benefits and many randomised controlled trials have looked at its benefits in preventing CVD. OBJECTIVES: To determine the role of IF in preventing and reducing the risk of CVD in people with or without prior documented CVD. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted our search on 12 December 2019; we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched three trials registers and searched the reference lists of included papers. Systematic reviews were also viewed for additional studies. There was no language restriction applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing IF to ad libitum feeding (eating at any time with no specific caloric restriction) or continuous energy restriction (CER). Participants had to be over the age of 18 and included those with and without cardiometabolic risk factors. Intermittent fasting was categorised into alternate-day fasting, modified alternate-day fasting, periodic fasting and time-restricted feeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Five review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extraction. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Secondary outcomes include the absolute change in body weight, and glucose. Furthermore, side effects such as headaches and changes to the quality of life were also noted. For continuous data, pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) were calculated. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.  MAIN RESULTS: Our search yielded 39,165 records after the removal of duplicates. From this, 26 studies met our criteria, and 18 were included in the pooled analysis. The 18 studies included 1125 participants and observed outcomes ranging from four weeks to six months. No studies included data on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure at any point during follow-up. Of quantitatively analysed data, seven studies compared IF with ab libitum feeding, eight studies compared IF with CER, and three studies compared IF with both ad libitum feeding and CER. Outcomes were reported at short term (≤ 3 months) and medium term (> 3 months to 12 months) follow-up. Body weight was reduced with IF compared to ad libitum feeding in the short term (MD -2.88 kg, 95% CI -3.96 to -1.80; 224 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of IF when compared to CER in the short term (MD -0.88 kg, 95% CI -1.76 to 0.00; 719 participants; 10 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and there may be no effect in the medium term (MD -0.56 kg, 95% CI -1.68 to 0.56; 279 participants; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of IF on glucose when compared to ad libitum feeding in the short term (MD -0.03 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.19; 95 participants; 3 studies; very-low-certainty of evidence) and when compared to CER  in the short term: MD -0.02 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.12; 582 participants; 9 studies; very low-certainty; medium term: MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.11; 279 participants; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). The changes in body weight and glucose were not deemed to be clinically significant. Four studies reported data on side effects, with some participants complaining of mild headaches. One study reported on the quality of life using the RAND SF-36 score. There was a modest increase in the physical component summary score. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent fasting was seen to be superior to ad libitum feeding in reducing weight. However, this was not clinically significant. There was no significant clinical difference between IF and CER in improving cardiometabolic risk factors to reduce the risk of CVD. Further research is needed to understand the safety and risk-benefit analysis of IF in specific patient groups (e.g. patients with diabetes or eating disorders) as well as the effect on longer-term outcomes such as all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction.


Assuntos
Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Jejum , Adulto , Viés , Glicemia/metabolismo , Peso Corporal , Restrição Calórica/métodos , Jejum/efeitos adversos , Comportamento Alimentar , Humanos , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Fatores de Tempo
5.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD013229, 2021 01 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33411338

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Smoking is a leading cause of disease and death worldwide. In people who smoke, quitting smoking can reverse much of the damage. Many people use behavioural interventions to help them quit smoking; these interventions can vary substantially in their content and effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assessed the effect of behavioural interventions designed to support smoking cessation attempts and to conduct a network meta-analysis to determine how modes of delivery; person delivering the intervention; and the nature, focus, and intensity of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation influence the likelihood of achieving abstinence six months after attempting to stop smoking; and whether the effects of behavioural interventions depend upon other characteristics, including population, setting, and the provision of pharmacotherapy. To summarise the availability and principal findings of economic evaluations of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation, in terms of comparative costs and cost-effectiveness, in the form of a brief economic commentary. METHODS: This work comprises two main elements. 1. We conducted a Cochrane Overview of reviews following standard Cochrane methods. We identified Cochrane Reviews of behavioural interventions (including all non-pharmacological interventions, e.g. counselling, exercise, hypnotherapy, self-help materials) for smoking cessation by searching the Cochrane Library in July 2020. We evaluated the methodological quality of reviews using AMSTAR 2 and synthesised data from the reviews narratively. 2. We used the included reviews to identify randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation compared with other behavioural interventions or no intervention for smoking cessation. To be included, studies had to include adult smokers and measure smoking abstinence at six months or longer. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. We synthesised data using Bayesian component network meta-analysis (CNMA), examining the effects of 38 different components compared to minimal intervention. Components included behavioural and motivational elements, intervention providers, delivery modes, nature, focus, and intensity of the behavioural intervention. We used component network meta-regression (CNMR) to evaluate the influence of population characteristics, provision of pharmacotherapy, and intervention intensity on the component effects. We evaluated certainty of the evidence using GRADE domains. We assumed an additive effect for individual components. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 Cochrane Reviews, from which 312 randomised controlled trials, representing 250,563 participants and 845 distinct study arms, met the criteria for inclusion in our component network meta-analysis. This represented 437 different combinations of components. Of the 33 reviews, confidence in review findings was high in four reviews and moderate in nine reviews, as measured by the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool. The remaining 20 reviews were low or critically low due to one or more critical weaknesses, most commonly inadequate investigation or discussion (or both) of the impact of publication bias. Of note, the critical weaknesses identified did not affect the searching, screening, or data extraction elements of the review process, which have direct bearing on our CNMA. Of the included studies, 125/312 were at low risk of bias overall, 50 were at high risk of bias, and the remainder were at unclear risk. Analyses from the contributing reviews and from our CNMA showed behavioural interventions for smoking cessation can increase quit rates, but effectiveness varies on characteristics of the support provided. There was high-certainty evidence of benefit for the provision of counselling (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.22 to 1.70, 194 studies, n = 72,273) and guaranteed financial incentives (OR 1.46, 95% CrI 1.15 to 1.85, 19 studies, n = 8877). Evidence of benefit remained when removing studies at high risk of bias. These findings were consistent with pair-wise meta-analyses from contributing reviews. There was moderate-certainty evidence of benefit for interventions delivered via text message (downgraded due to unexplained statistical heterogeneity in pair-wise comparison), and for the following components where point estimates suggested benefit but CrIs incorporated no clinically significant difference: individual tailoring; intervention content including motivational components; intervention content focused on how to quit. The remaining intervention components had low-to very low-certainty evidence, with the main issues being imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence to suggest an increase in harms in groups receiving behavioural support for smoking cessation. Intervention effects were not changed by adjusting for population characteristics, but data were limited. Increasing intensity of behavioural support, as measured through the number of contacts, duration of each contact, and programme length, had point estimates associated with modestly increased chances of quitting, but CrIs included no difference. The effect of behavioural support for smoking cessation appeared slightly less pronounced when people were already receiving smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural support for smoking cessation can increase quit rates at six months or longer, with no evidence that support increases harms. This is the case whether or not smoking cessation pharmacotherapy is also provided, but the effect is slightly more pronounced in the absence of pharmacotherapy. Evidence of benefit is strongest for the provision of any form of counselling, and guaranteed financial incentives. Evidence suggested possible benefit but the need of further studies to evaluate: individual tailoring; delivery via text message, email, and audio recording; delivery by lay health advisor; and intervention content with motivational components and a focus on how to quit. We identified 23 economic evaluations; evidence did not consistently suggest one type of behavioural intervention for smoking cessation was more cost-effective than another. Future reviews should fully consider publication bias. Tools to investigate publication bias and to evaluate certainty in CNMA are needed.


Assuntos
Terapia Comportamental/métodos , Metanálise em Rede , Abandono do Hábito de Fumar/métodos , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Adulto , Teorema de Bayes , Viés , Aconselhamento , Exercício Físico , Feminino , Humanos , Hipnose , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Viés de Publicação/estatística & dados numéricos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Autocuidado , Fatores de Tempo , Adulto Jovem
6.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD013630, 2021 01 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33428222

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have identified the prognostic relevance of extent of resection in the management of glioma. Different intraoperative technologies have emerged in recent years with unknown comparative efficacy in optimising extent of resection. One previous Cochrane Review provided low- to very low-certainty evidence in single trial analyses and synthesis of results was not possible. The role of intraoperative technology in maximising extent of resection remains uncertain. Due to the multiple complementary technologies available, this research question is amenable to a network meta-analysis methodological approach. OBJECTIVES: To establish the comparative effectiveness and risk profile of specific intraoperative imaging technologies using a network meta-analysis and to identify cost analyses and economic evaluations as part of a brief economic commentary. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2020, Issue 5), MEDLINE via Ovid to May week 2 2020, and Embase via Ovid to 2020 week 20. We performed backward searching of all identified studies. We handsearched two journals, Neuro-oncology and the Journal of Neuro-oncology from 1990 to 2019 including all conference abstracts. Finally, we contacted recognised experts in neuro-oncology to identify any additional eligible studies and acquire information on ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating people of all ages with presumed new or recurrent glial tumours (of any location or histology) from clinical examination and imaging (computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or both). Additional imaging modalities (e.g. positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance spectroscopy) were not mandatory. Interventions included fluorescence-guided surgery, intraoperative ultrasound, neuronavigation (with or without additional image processing, e.g. tractography), and intraoperative MRI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the search results for relevance, undertook critical appraisal according to known guidelines, and extracted data using a prespecified pro forma. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four RCTs, using different intraoperative imaging technologies: intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (iMRI) (2 trials, with 58 and 14 participants); fluorescence-guided surgery with 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) (1 trial, 322 participants); and neuronavigation (1 trial, 45 participants). We identified one ongoing trial assessing iMRI with a planned sample size of 304 participants for which results are expected to be published around winter 2020. We identified no published trials for intraoperative ultrasound. Network meta-analyses or traditional meta-analyses were not appropriate due to absence of homogeneous trials across imaging technologies. Of the included trials, there was notable heterogeneity in tumour location and imaging technologies utilised in control arms. There were significant concerns regarding risk of bias in all the included studies. One trial of iMRI found increased extent of resection (risk ratio (RR) for incomplete resection was 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.96; 49 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and one trial of 5-ALA (RR for incomplete resection was 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.71; 270 participants; low-certainty evidence). The other trial assessing iMRI was stopped early after an unplanned interim analysis including 14 participants; therefore, the trial provided very low-quality evidence. The trial of neuronavigation provided insufficient data to evaluate the effects on extent of resection. Reporting of adverse events was incomplete and suggestive of significant reporting bias (very low-certainty evidence). Overall, the proportion of reported events was low in most trials and, therefore, issues with power to detect differences in outcomes that may or may not have been present. Survival outcomes were not adequately reported, although one trial reported no evidence of improvement in overall survival with 5-ALA (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.07; 270 participants; low-certainty evidence). Data for quality of life were only available for one study and there was significant attrition bias (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative imaging technologies, specifically 5-ALA and iMRI, may be of benefit in maximising extent of resection in participants with high-grade glioma. However, this is based on low- to very low-certainty evidence. Therefore, the short- and long-term neurological effects are uncertain. Effects of image-guided surgery on overall survival, progression-free survival, and quality of life are unclear. Network and traditional meta-analyses were not possible due to the identified high risk of bias, heterogeneity, and small trials included in this review. A brief economic commentary found limited economic evidence for the equivocal use of iMRI compared with conventional surgery. In terms of costs, one non-systematic review of economic studies suggested that, compared with standard surgery, use of image-guided surgery has an uncertain effect on costs and that 5-ALA was more costly. Further research, including completion of ongoing trials of ultrasound-guided surgery, is needed.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Encefálicas/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias Encefálicas/cirurgia , Glioma/diagnóstico por imagem , Glioma/cirurgia , Ácido Aminolevulínico/administração & dosagem , Viés , Humanos , Cuidados Intraoperatórios , Imagem por Ressonância Magnética Intervencionista/estatística & dados numéricos , Metanálise em Rede , Neuronavegação/métodos , Neuronavegação/estatística & dados numéricos , Imagem Óptica/métodos , Imagem Óptica/estatística & dados numéricos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos
7.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD012479, 2021 01 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33434949

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Various rehabilitation treatments may be offered following surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand. Rehabilitation often includes a combination of an exercise regimen and an orthosis, plus other rehabilitation treatments, usually delivered together. The effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of different rehabilitation interventions after surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, two additional databases and two international trials registries, unrestricted by language. The last date of searches was 11 August 2020. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared any postoperative rehabilitation intervention with no intervention, control, placebo, or another postoperative rehabilitation intervention in individuals who have had surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand. Trials comparing different mobilisation regimens either with another mobilisation regimen or with a control were the main comparisons of interest. Our main outcomes of interest were patient-reported function, active range of motion of the fingers, and number of participants experiencing an adverse event. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for primary outcomes using the GRADE approach, according to standard Cochrane methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs and one quasi-RCT, with a total of 1108 participants, mainly adults. Overall, the participants were aged between 7 and 72 years, and 74% were male. Studies mainly focused on flexor tendon injuries in zone II. The 17 studies were heterogeneous with respect to the types of rehabilitation treatments provided, intensity, duration of treatment and the treatment setting. Each trial tested one of 14 comparisons, eight of which were of different exercise regimens. The other trials examined the timing of return to unrestricted functional activities after surgery (one study); the use of external devices applied to the participant to facilitate mobilisation, such as an exoskeleton (one study) or continuous passive motion device (one study); modalities such as laser therapy (two studies) or ultrasound therapy (one study); and a motor imagery treatment (one study). No trials tested different types of orthoses; different orthosis wearing regimens, including duration; different timings for commencing mobilisation; different types of scar management; or different timings for commencing strengthening. Trials were generally at high risk of bias for one or more domains, including lack of blinding, incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting. Data pooling was limited to tendon rupture data in a three trial comparison. We rated the evidence available for all reported outcomes of all comparisons as very low-certainty evidence, which means that we have very little confidence in the estimates of effect. We present the findings from three exercise regimen comparisons, as these are commonly used in clinical current practice. Early active flexion plus controlled passive exercise regimen versus early controlled passive exercise regimen (modified Kleinert protocol) was compared in one trial of 53 participants with mainly zone II flexor tendon repairs. There is very low-certainty evidence of no clinically important difference between the two groups in patient-rated function or active finger range of motion at 6 or 12 months follow-up. There is very low-certainty evidence of little between-group difference in adverse events: there were 15 overall. All three tendon ruptures underwent secondary surgery. An active exercise regimen versus an immobilisation regimen for three weeks was compared in one trial reporting data for 84 participants with zone II flexor tendon repairs. The trial did not report on self-rated function, on range of movement during three to six months or numbers of participants experiencing adverse events. The very low-certainty evidence for poor (under one-quarter that of normal) range of finger movement at one to three years follow-up means we are uncertain of the finding of zero cases in the active group versus seven cases in the immobilisation regimen. The same uncertainty applies to the finding of little difference between the two groups in adverse events (5 tendon ruptures in the active group versus 10 probable scar adhesion in the immobilisation group) indicated for surgery. Place and hold exercise regimen performed within an orthosis versus a controlled passive regimen using rubber band traction was compared in three heterogeneous trials, which reported data for a maximum of 194 participants, with mainly zone II flexor tendon repairs. The trials did not report on range of movement during three to six months, or numbers of participants experiencing adverse events. There was very low-certainty evidence of no difference in self-rated function using the Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) functional assessment between the two groups at six months (one trial) or at 12 months (one trial). There is very low-certainty evidence from one trial of greater active finger range of motion at 12 months after place and hold. Secondary surgery data were not available; however, all seven recorded tendon ruptures would have required surgery. All the evidence for the other five exercise comparisons as well as those of the other six comparisons made by the included studies was incomplete and, where available, of very low-certainty. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of evidence from RCTs on most of the rehabilitation interventions used following surgery for flexor tendon injuries of the hand. The limited and very low-certainty evidence for all 14 comparisons examined in the 17 included studies means that we have very little confidence in the estimates of effect for all outcomes for which data were available for these comparisons. The dearth of evidence identified in this review points to the urgent need for sufficiently powered RCTs that examine key questions relating to the rehabilitation of these injuries. A consensus approach identifying these and establishing minimum study conduct and reporting criteria will be valuable. Our suggestions for future research are detailed in the review.


Assuntos
Traumatismos da Mão/reabilitação , Traumatismos dos Tendões/reabilitação , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Viés , Criança , Terapia por Exercício/efeitos adversos , Terapia por Exercício/métodos , Exoesqueleto Energizado , Feminino , Traumatismos da Mão/cirurgia , Humanos , Imobilização , Terapia a Laser , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Contração Muscular/fisiologia , Cuidados Pós-Operatórios/métodos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Amplitude de Movimento Articular , Ruptura/reabilitação , Ruptura/cirurgia , Traumatismos dos Tendões/cirurgia , Terapia por Ultrassom , Adulto Jovem
8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD013133, 2021 01 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33448032

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) is associated with mortality and morbidity in preterm infants. In these infants, prophylactic use of indomethacin, a non-selective cyclooxygenase inhibitor, has demonstrated short-term clinical benefits. The effect of indomethacin in preterm infants with a symptomatic PDA remains unexplored. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of indomethacin (given by any route) compared to placebo or no treatment in reducing mortality and morbidity in preterm infants with a symptomatic PDA. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 7), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions(R); and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), on 31 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs that compared indomethacin (any dose, any route) versus placebo or no treatment in preterm infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by at least two review authors. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: failure of PDA closure within one week of administration of the first dose of indomethacin; bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) at 28 days' postnatal age and at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age; proportion of infants requiring surgical ligation or transcatheter occlusion; all-cause neonatal mortality; necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) (≥ Bell stage 2); and mucocutaneous or gastrointestinal bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs (880 preterm infants). Four out of the 14 included studies were judged to have high risk of bias in one or more domains. Indomethacin administration was associated with a large reduction in failure of PDA closure within one week of administration of the first dose (risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.38; risk difference (RD) -0.52, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.45; 10 studies, 654 infants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the incidence of BPD (BPD defined as supplemental oxygen need at 28 days' postnatal age: RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.51; 1 study, 55 infants; low-certainty evidence; BPD defined as supplemental oxygen need at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age: RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.55; 1 study, 92 infants; low-certainty evidence) and probably little to no difference in mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.33; 8 studies, 314 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) with use of indomethacin for symptomatic PDA. No differences were demonstrated in the need for surgical PDA ligation (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.29; 7 studies, 275 infants; moderate-certainty evidence), in NEC (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.55; 2 studies, 147 infants; low-certainty evidence), or in mucocutaneous or gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.58; 2 studies, 119 infants; low-certainty evidence) with use of indomethacin compared to placebo or no treatment. Certainty of evidence for BPD, surgical PDA ligation, NEC, and mucocutaneous or gastrointestinal bleeding was downgraded for very serious or serious imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-certainty evidence shows that indomethacin is effective in closing a symptomatic PDA compared to placebo or no treatment in preterm infants. Evidence is insufficient regarding effects of indomethacin on other clinically relevant outcomes and medication-related adverse effects.


Assuntos
Inibidores de Ciclo-Oxigenase/uso terapêutico , Permeabilidade do Canal Arterial/tratamento farmacológico , Indometacina/uso terapêutico , Viés , Displasia Broncopulmonar/epidemiologia , Causas de Morte , Inibidores de Ciclo-Oxigenase/administração & dosagem , Inibidores de Ciclo-Oxigenase/efeitos adversos , Permeabilidade do Canal Arterial/mortalidade , Permeabilidade do Canal Arterial/cirurgia , Enterocolite Necrosante/induzido quimicamente , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/induzido quimicamente , Humanos , Incidência , Indometacina/administração & dosagem , Indometacina/efeitos adversos , Recém-Nascido de Baixo Peso , Recém-Nascido , Recém-Nascido Prematuro , Ligadura/estatística & dados numéricos , Oxigenoterapia/estatística & dados numéricos , Placebos/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos
9.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD013198, 2021 01 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33448349

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation. Acute exacerbations punctuate the natural history of COPD and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality and disease progression. Chronic airflow limitation is caused by a combination of small airways (bronchitis) and parenchymal destruction (emphysema), which can impact day-to-day activities and overall quality of life. In carefully selected patients with COPD, long-term, prophylactic use of antibiotics may reduce bacterial load, inflammation of the airways, and the frequency of exacerbations. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of different prophylactic antibiotics on exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events in people with COPD in three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs), and to provide rankings of identified antibiotics. SEARCH METHODS: To identify eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and clinical trials registries. We conducted the most recent search on 22 January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs with a parallel design of at least 12 weeks' duration evaluating long-term administration of antibiotics prophylactically compared with other antibiotics, or placebo, for patients with COPD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This Cochrane Review collected and updated pair-wise data from two previous Cochrane Reviews. Searches were updated and additional studies included. We conducted three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs) within a Bayesian framework to assess three outcomes: exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events. For quality of life, we collected data from St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Using previously validated methods, we selected the simplest model that could adequately fit the data for every analysis. We used threshold analysis to indicate which results were robust to potential biases, taking into account each study's contributions to the overall results and network structure. Probability ranking was performed for each antibiotic class for exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Characteristics of studies and participants Eight trials were conducted at multiple sites that included hospital clinics or academic health centres. Seven were single-centre trials conducted in hospital clinics. Two trials did not report settings. Trials durations ranged from 12 to 52 weeks. Most participants had moderate to severe disease. Mean age ranged from 64 years to 73 years, and more males were recruited (51% to 100%). Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ranged from 0.935 to 1.36 L. Most participants had previous exacerbations. Data from 12 studies were included in the NMAs (3405 participants; 16 treatment arms including placebo). Prophylactic antibiotics evaluated were macrolides (azithromycin and erythromycin), tetracyclines (doxycyclines), quinolones (moxifloxacin) and macrolides plus tetracyclines (roxithromycin plus doxycycline). Risk of bias and threshold analysis Most studies were at low risk across domains, except detection bias, for which only seven studies were judged at low risk. In the threshold analysis for exacerbations, all comparisons in which one antibiotic was compared with another were robust to sampling variation, especially macrolide comparisons. Comparisons of classes with placebo were sensitive to potential bias, especially macrolide versus placebo, therefore, any bias in the comparison was likely to favour the active class, so any adjustment would bring the estimated relative effect closer to the null value, thus quinolone may become the best class to prevent exacerbations. Exacerbations Nine studies were included (2732 participants) in this NMA (exacerbations analysed as time to first exacerbation or people with one or more exacerbations). Macrolides and quinolones reduced exacerbations. Macrolides had a greater effect in reducing exacerbations compared with placebo (macrolides: hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.60 to 0.75; quinolones: HR 0.89, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.04), resulting in 127 fewer people per 1000 experiencing exacerbations on macrolides. The difference in exacerbations between tetracyclines and placebo was uncertain (HR 1.29, 95% CrI 0.66 to 2.41). Macrolides ranked first (95% CrI first to second), with quinolones ranked second (95% CrI second to third). Tetracyclines ranked fourth, which was lower than placebo (ranked third). Contributing studies were considered as low risk of bias in a threshold analysis. Quality of life (SGRQ) Seven studies were included (2237 participants) in this NMA. SGRQ scores improved with macrolide treatment compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: mean difference (MD) -2.30, 95% CrI -3.61 to -0.99), but the mean difference did not reach the minimally clinical important difference (MCID) of 4 points. Tetracyclines and quinolones did not improve quality of life any more than placebo, and we did not detect a difference between antibiotic classes. Serious adverse events Nine studies were included (3180 participants) in the NMA. Macrolides reduced the odds of a serious adverse event compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% CrI 0.62 to 0.93). There was probably little to no difference in the effect of quinolone compared with placebo or tetracycline plus macrolide compared with placebo. There was probably little to no difference in serious adverse events between quinolones or tetracycline plus macrolide. With macrolide treatment 49 fewer people per 1000 experienced a serious adverse event compared with those given placebo. Macrolides ranked first, followed by quinolones. Tetracycline did not rank better than placebo. Drug resistance Ten studies reported drug resistance. Results were not combined due to variation in outcome measures. All studies concluded that prophylactic antibiotic administration was associated with the development of antimicrobial resistance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This NMA evaluated the safety and efficacy of different antibiotics used prophylactically for COPD patients. Compared to placebo, prolonged administration of macrolides (ranked first) appeared beneficial in prolonging the time to next exacerbation, improving quality of life, and reducing serious adverse events. No clear benefits were associated with use of quinolones or tetracyclines. In addition, antibiotic resistance was a concern and could not be thoroughly assessed in this review. Given the trade-off between effectiveness, safety, and risk of antibiotic resistance, prophylactic administration of antibiotics may be best reserved for selected patients, such as those experiencing frequent exacerbations. However, none of the eligible studies excluded patients with previously isolated non-tuberculous mycobacteria, which would contraindicate prophylactic administration of antibiotics, due to the risk of developing resistant non-tuberculous mycobacteria.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Antibioticoprofilaxia/métodos , Carga Bacteriana/efeitos dos fármacos , Progressão da Doença , Metanálise em Rede , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Idoso , Antibacterianos/efeitos adversos , Antibioticoprofilaxia/efeitos adversos , Teorema de Bayes , Viés , Feminino , Volume Expiratório Forçado , Humanos , Macrolídeos/efeitos adversos , Macrolídeos/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/complicações , Doença Pulmonar Obstrutiva Crônica/microbiologia , Qualidade de Vida , Quinolonas/efeitos adversos , Quinolonas/uso terapêutico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Tetraciclinas/efeitos adversos , Tetraciclinas/uso terapêutico , Resultado do Tratamento
10.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD013011, 2021 01 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33460048

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by symptoms of inattention or impulsivity or both, and hyperactivity, which affect children, adolescents, and adults. In some countries, methylphenidate is the first option to treat adults with moderate or severe ADHD. However, evidence on the efficacy and adverse events of immediate-release (IR) methylphenidate in the treatment of ADHD in adults is limited and controversial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and harms (adverse events) of IR methylphenidate for treating ADHD in adults. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2020, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight additional databases and three trial registers. We also searched internal reports on the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration websites. We checked citations of included trials to identify additional trials not captured by the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IR methylphenidate, at any dose, with placebo or other pharmacological interventions (including extended-release formulations of methylphenidate) for ADHD in adults. Primary outcomes comprised changes in the symptoms of ADHD (efficacy) and harms. Secondary outcomes included changes in the clinical impression of severity and improvement, level of functioning, depression, anxiety and quality of life. Outcomes could have been rated by investigators or participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data independently on the characteristics of the trials, participants, interventions; outcomes and financial conflict of interests. We resolved disagreements by discussion or consulting a third review author. We obtained additional, unpublished information from the authors of one included trial that had reported efficacy data in a graph. We calculated mean differences (MDs) or standardized MDs (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data reported on the same or different scales, respectively. We summarized dichotomous variables as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CI. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials published between 2001 and 2016 involving 497 adults with ADHD. Three trials were conducted in Europe and one in Argentina; the remaining trials did not report their location. The RCTs compared IR methylphenidate with placebo, an osmotic-release oral system (OROS) of methylphenidate (an extended-release formulation), an extended-release formulation of bupropion, lithium, and Pycnogenol® (maritime pine bark extract). Participants comprised outpatients, inpatients in addiction treatment, and adults willing to attend an intensive outpatient program for cocaine dependence. The duration of the follow-up ranged from 6 to 18 weeks. IR methylphenidate versus placebo We found very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce symptoms of ADHD when measured with investigator-rated scales (MD -20.70, 95% CI -23.97 to -17.43; 1 trial, 146 participants; end scores; Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Report Scale (AISRS), scored from 0 to 54), but the evidence is uncertain. The effect of IR methylphenidate on ADHD symptoms when measured with participant-rated scales was moderate, but the certainty of the evidence is very low (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.06; I2 = 69%; 2 trials, 138 participants; end scores). There is very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce the clinical impression of the severity of ADHD symptoms (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.28; 2 trials, 139 participants; I2 = 0%; change and end scores; Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may slightly impact the clinical impression of an improvement in symptoms of ADHD (MD -0.94, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.51; 1 trial, 49 participants; end scores; CGI-Improvement scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is no clear evidence of an effect on anxiety (MD -0.20, 95% CI -4.84 to 4.44; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A; scored from 0 to 56); very low-certainty evidence) or depression (MD 2.80, 95% CI -0.09 to 5.69; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D; scored from 0 to 52); very low-certainty evidence) in analyses comparing IR methylphenidate with placebo. IR methylphenidate versus lithium Compared with lithium, it is uncertain whether IR methylphenidate increases or decreases symptoms of ADHD (MD 0.60, 95% CI -3.11 to 4.31; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (scored from 0 to 198); very low-certainty evidence); anxiety (MD -0.80, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.89; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-A; very low-certainty evidence); or depression (MD -1.20, 95% CI -3.81 to 1.41, 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-D scale; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed participant-rated changes in symptoms of ADHD, or clinical impression of severity or improvement in participants treated with IR methylphenidate compared with lithium. Adverse events were poorly assessed and reported. We rated all trials at high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting of harms and masking of outcome assessors (failure to blind outcome assessor to measure adverse events). Overall, four trials with 203 participants who received IR methylphenidate and 141 participants who received placebo described the occurrence of harms. The use of IR methylphenidate in these trials increased the risk of gastrointestinal complications (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.95) and loss of appetite (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.96). Cardiovascular adverse events were reported inconsistently, preventing a comprehensive analysis. One trial comparing IR methylphenidate to lithium reported five and nine adverse events, respectively. We considered four trials to have notable concerns of vested interests influencing the evidence, and authors from two trials omitted information related to the sources of funding and conflicts of interest. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no certain evidence that IR methylphenidate compared with placebo or lithium can reduce symptoms of ADHD in adults (low- and very low-certainty evidence). Adults treated with IR methylphenidate are at increased risk of gastrointestinal and metabolic-related harms compared with placebo. Clinicians should consider whether it is appropriate to prescribe IR methylphenidate, given its limited efficacy and increased risk of harms. Future RCTs should explore the long-term efficacy and risks of IR methylphenidate, and the influence of conflicts of interest on reported effects.


Assuntos
Transtorno do Deficit de Atenção com Hiperatividade/tratamento farmacológico , Estimulantes do Sistema Nervoso Central/administração & dosagem , Metilfenidato/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Antidepressivos de Segunda Geração/administração & dosagem , Ansiedade/tratamento farmacológico , Viés , Bupropiona/administração & dosagem , Estimulantes do Sistema Nervoso Central/efeitos adversos , Depressão/tratamento farmacológico , Sistemas de Liberação de Medicamentos , Feminino , Flavonoides/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Compostos de Lítio/administração & dosagem , Masculino , Metilfenidato/efeitos adversos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Placebos/administração & dosagem , Extratos Vegetais/administração & dosagem , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto Jovem
11.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD011865, 2021 Jan 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33469932

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Changes to the method of payment for healthcare providers, including pay-for-performance schemes, are increasingly being used by governments, health insurers, and employers to help align financial incentives with health system goals. In this review we focused on changes to the method and level of payment for all types of healthcare providers in outpatient healthcare settings. Outpatient healthcare settings, broadly defined as 'out of hospital' care including primary care, are important for health systems in reducing the use of more expensive hospital services. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings on the quantity and quality of health service provision, patient outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes, cost of service provision, and adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase (searched 5 March 2019), and several other databases. In addition, we searched clinical trials platforms, grey literature, screened reference lists of included studies, did a cited reference search for included studies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We screened records from an updated search in August 2020, with any potentially relevant studies categorised as awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies that compared different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient care settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We conducted a structured synthesis. We first categorised the payment methods comparisons and outcomes, and then described the effects of different types of payment methods on different outcome categories. Where feasible, we used meta-analysis to synthesise the effects of payment interventions under the same category. Where it was not possible to perform meta-analysis, we have reported means/medians and full ranges of the available point estimates. We have reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the relative difference (as per cent change or mean difference (MD)) for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies in the review: 12 randomised trials, 13 controlled before-and-after studies, one interrupted time series, and one repeated measure study. Most healthcare providers were primary care physicians. Most of the payment methods were implemented by health insurance schemes in high-income countries, with only one study from a low- or middle-income country. The included studies were categorised into four groups based on comparisons of different payment methods. (1) Pay for performance (P4P) plus existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings P4P incentives probably improve child immunisation status (RR 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.36; 3760 patients; moderate-certainty evidence) and may slightly increase the number of patients who are asked more detailed questions on their disease by their pharmacist (MD 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.54; 454 patients; low-certainty evidence). P4P may slightly improve primary care physicians' prescribing of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medicines compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12; 362 patients; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effects of extra P4P incentives on mean blood pressure reduction for patients and costs for providing services compared with an existing payment method (very low-certainty evidence). Outcomes related to workload or other health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial found that compared to the control group, the performance of incentivised professionals was not sustained after the P4P intervention had ended. (2) Fee for service (FFS) compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings We are uncertain about the effect of FFS on the quantity of health services delivered (outpatient visits and hospitalisations), patient health outcomes, and total drugs cost compared to an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. The quality of service provision and health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial reported that physicians paid via FFS may see more well patients than salaried physicians (low-certainty evidence), possibly implying that more unnecessary services were delivered through FFS. (3) FFS mixed with existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings FFS mixed payment method may increase the quantity of health services provided compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of FFS mixed payment on quality of services provided, patient health outcomes, and health professional outcomes compared with an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. Cost outcomes and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. (4) Enhanced FFS compared with FFS for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings Enhanced FFS (higher FFS payment) probably increases child immunisation rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether higher FFS payment results in more primary care visits and about the effect of enhanced FFS on the net expenditure per year on covered children with regular FFS (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of service provision, patient outcomes, health professional outcomes, and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings, P4P or an increase in FFS payment level probably increases the quantity of health service provision (moderate-certainty evidence), and P4P may slightly improve the quality of service provision for targeted conditions (low-certainty evidence). The effects of changes in payment methods on health outcomes is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. Information to explore the influence of specific payment method design features, such as the size of incentives and type of performance measures, was insufficient. Furthermore, due to limited and very low-certainty evidence, it is uncertain if changing payment models without including additional funding for professionals would have similar effects. There is a need for further well-conducted research on payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings in low- and middle-income countries; more studies comparing the impacts of different designs of the same payment method; and studies that consider the unintended consequences of payment interventions.


Assuntos
Instituições de Assistência Ambulatorial/economia , Pessoal de Saúde/economia , Mecanismo de Reembolso/economia , Instituições de Assistência Ambulatorial/estatística & dados numéricos , Capitação , Estudos Controlados Antes e Depois/estatística & dados numéricos , Custos e Análise de Custo , Assistência à Saúde/economia , Assistência à Saúde/normas , Assistência à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Planos de Pagamento por Serviço Prestado/economia , Planos de Pagamento por Serviço Prestado/normas , Planos de Pagamento por Serviço Prestado/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Análise de Séries Temporais Interrompida , Médicos de Atenção Primária/economia , Médicos de Atenção Primária/estatística & dados numéricos , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde/economia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Mecanismo de Reembolso/classificação , Mecanismo de Reembolso/estatística & dados numéricos , Reembolso de Incentivo/economia , Reembolso de Incentivo/normas , Reembolso de Incentivo/estatística & dados numéricos , Salários e Benefícios/economia , Resultado do Tratamento
12.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD013398, 2021 01 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33471371

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Despite being preventable, malaria remains an important public health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that overall progress in malaria control has plateaued for the first time since the turn of the century. Researchers and policymakers are therefore exploring alternative and supplementary malaria vector control tools. Research in 1900 indicated that modification of houses may be effective in reducing malaria: this is now being revisited, with new research now examining blocking house mosquito entry points or modifying house construction materials to reduce exposure of inhabitants to infectious bites. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of house modifications on malaria disease and transmission. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (OVID); Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CAB) Abstracts (Web of Science); and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS), up to 1 November 2019. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en/), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/) to identify ongoing trials up to the same date. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, including cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs), cross-over studies, and stepped-wedge designs were eligible, as were quasi-experimental trials, including controlled before-and-after studies, controlled interrupted time series, and non-randomized cross-over studies. We only considered studies reporting epidemiological outcomes (malaria case incidence, malaria infection incidence or parasite prevalence). We also summarised qualitative studies conducted alongside included studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used risk ratios (RR) to compare the effect of the intervention with the control for dichotomous data. For continuous data, we presented the mean difference; and for count and rate data, we used rate ratios. We presented all results with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Six cRCTs met our inclusion criteria, all conducted in sub-Saharan Africa; three randomized by household, two by village, and one at the community level. All trials assessed screening of windows, doors, eaves, ceilings or any combination of these; this was either alone, or in combination with eave closure, roof modification or eave tube installation (a "lure and kill" device that reduces mosquito entry whilst maintaining some airflow). In two trials, the interventions were insecticide-based. In five trials, the researchers implemented the interventions. The community implemented the interventions in the sixth trial. At the time of writing the review, two of the six trials had published results, both of which compared screened houses (without insecticide) to unscreened houses. One trial in Ethiopia assessed screening of windows and doors. Another trial in the Gambia assessed full screening (screening of eaves, doors and windows), as well as screening of ceilings only. Screening may reduce clinical malaria incidence caused by Plasmodium falciparum (rate ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.82; 1 trial, 184 participants, 219.3 person-years; low-certainty evidence; Ethiopian study). For malaria parasite prevalence, the point estimate, derived from The Gambia study, was smaller (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.17; 713 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence), and showed an effect on anaemia (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42, 0.89; 705 participants; 1 trial, moderate-certainty evidence). Screening may reduce the entomological inoculation rate (EIR): both trials showed lower estimates in the intervention arm. In the Gambian trial, there was a mean difference in EIR between the control houses and treatment houses ranging from 0.45 to 1.50 (CIs ranged from -0.46 to 2.41; low-certainty evidence), depending on the study year and treatment arm. The Ethiopian trial reported a mean difference in EIR of 4.57, favouring screening (95% CI 3.81 to 5.33; low-certainty evidence). Pooled analysis of the trials showed that individuals living in fully screened houses were slightly less likely to sleep under a bed net (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.09; 2 trials, 203 participants). In one trial, bed net usage was also lower in individuals living in houses with screened ceilings (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95; 1 trial, 135 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the two trials published to date, there is some evidence that screening may reduce malaria transmission and malaria infection in people living in the house. The four trials awaiting publication are likely to enrich the current evidence base, and we will add these to this review when they become available.


Assuntos
Materiais de Construção , Habitação , Malária Falciparum/prevenção & controle , Adolescente , Adulto , África ao Sul do Saara/epidemiologia , Anemia/diagnóstico , Anemia/epidemiologia , Animais , Arquitetura , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Lactente , Inseticidas , Malária Falciparum/epidemiologia , Malária Falciparum/parasitologia , Masculino , Mosquiteiros , Mosquitos Vetores , Plasmodium falciparum , Gravidez , Prevalência , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos
13.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD013529, 2021 Jan 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33471939

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease affects approximately seven million people globally. Iron deficiency anaemia can occur as a common systemic manifestation, with a prevalence of up to 90%, which can significantly affect quality of life, both during periods of active disease or in remission. It is important that iron deficiency anaemia is treated effectively and not be assumed to be a normal finding of inflammatory bowel disease. The various routes of iron administration, doses and preparations present varying advantages and disadvantages, and a significant proportion of people experience adverse effects with current therapies. Currently, no consensus has been reached amongst physicians as to which treatment path is most beneficial. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the interventions for the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in people with inflammatory bowel disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 21st November 2019. We also contacted experts in the field and searched references of trials for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness and safety of iron administration interventions compared to other iron administration interventions or placebo in the treatment of iron deficiency anaemia in inflammatory bowel disease. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies (1670 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. The studies compared intravenous iron sucrose vs oral iron sulphate (2 studies); oral iron sulphate vs oral iron hydroxide polymaltose complex (1 study); oral iron fumarate vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs intravenous iron sucrose (1 study); erythropoietin injection + intravenous iron sucrose vs intravenous iron sucrose + injection placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs oral placebo (1 study); oral ferric maltol vs intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (1 study); intravenous ferric carboxymaltose vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); intravenous iron isomaltoside vs oral iron sulphate (1 study); erythropoietin injection vs oral placebo (1 study). All studies compared participants with CD and UC together, as well as considering a range of disease activity states. The primary outcome of number of responders, when defined, was stated to be an increase in haemoglobin of 20 g/L in all but two studies in which an increase in 10g/L was used. In one study comparing intravenous ferric carboxymaltose and intravenous iron sucrose, moderate-certainty evidence was found that intravenous ferric carboxymaltose was probably superior to intravenous iron sucrose, although there were responders in both groups (150/244 versus 118/239, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.46, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 9). In one study comparing oral ferric maltol to placebo, there was low-certainty evidence of superiority of the iron (36/64 versus 0/64, RR 73.00, 95% CI 4.58 to 1164.36). There were no other direct comparisons that found any difference in the primary outcomes, although certainty was low and very low for all outcomes, due to imprecision from sparse data and risk of bias varying between moderate and high risk. The reporting of secondary outcomes was inconsistent. The most common was the occurrence of serious adverse events or those requiring withdrawal of therapy. In no comparisons was there a difference seen between any of the intervention agents being studied, although the certainty was very low for all comparisons made, due to risk of bias and significant imprecision due to the low numbers of events. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes were reported in any of the studies. An analysis of all intravenous iron preparations to all oral iron preparations showed that intravenous administration may lead to more responders (368/554 versus 205/373, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.31, NNTB = 11, low-certainty due to risk of bias and inconsistency). Withdrawals due to adverse events may be greater in oral iron preparations vs intravenous (15/554 versus 31/373, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.74, low-certainty due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous ferric carboxymaltose probably leads to more people having resolution of IDA (iron deficiency anaemia) than intravenous iron sucrose. Oral ferric maltol may lead to more people having resolution of IDA than placebo. We are unable to draw conclusions on which of the other treatments is most effective in IDA with IBD (inflammatory bowel disease) due to low numbers of studies in each comparison area and clinical heterogeneity within the studies. Therefore, there are no other conclusions regarding the treatments that can be made and certainty of all findings are low or very low. Overall, intravenous iron delivery probably leads to greater response in patients compared with oral iron, with a NNTB (number needed to treat) of 11. Whilst no serious adverse events were specifically elicited with any of the treatments studied, the numbers of reported events were low and the certainty of these findings very low for all comparisons, so no conclusions can be drawn. There may be more withdrawals due to such events when oral is compared with intravenous iron delivery. Other outcomes were poorly reported and once again no conclusions can be made as to the impact of IDA on any of these outcomes. Given the widespread use of many of these treatments in practice and the only guideline that exists recommending the use of intravenous iron in favour of oral iron, research to investigate this key issue is clearly needed. Considering the current ongoing trials identified in this review, these are more focussed on the impact in specific patient groups (young people) or on other symptoms (such as fatigue). Therefore, there is a need for studies to be performed to fill this evidence gap.


Assuntos
Anemia Ferropriva/terapia , Colite Ulcerativa/complicações , Doença de Crohn/complicações , Hematínicos/administração & dosagem , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Anemia Ferropriva/complicações , Viés , Dissacarídeos/administração & dosagem , Dissacarídeos/efeitos adversos , Eritropoetina/administração & dosagem , Compostos Férricos/administração & dosagem , Compostos Férricos/efeitos adversos , Óxido de Ferro Sacarado/administração & dosagem , Óxido de Ferro Sacarado/efeitos adversos , Fumaratos/administração & dosagem , Fumaratos/efeitos adversos , Hematínicos/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Compostos de Ferro/administração & dosagem , Compostos de Ferro/efeitos adversos , Maltose/administração & dosagem , Maltose/efeitos adversos , Maltose/análogos & derivados , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Placebos/administração & dosagem , Pironas/administração & dosagem , Pironas/efeitos adversos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Adulto Jovem
14.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 1: CD012863, 2021 01 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33491176

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Bladder dysfunction is a common complication following radical hysterectomy, caused by the damage to pelvic autonomic nerves that innervate the muscles of the bladder, urethral sphincter, and pelvic floor fasciae. Bladder dysfunction increases the rates of urinary tract infection, hospital visits or admission, and patient dissatisfaction. In addition, bladder dysfunction can also negatively impact patient quality of life (QoL). Several postoperative interventions have been proposed to prevent bladder dysfunction following radical hysterectomy. To our knowledge, there has been no systematic review evaluating the effectiveness and safety of these interventions for preventing bladder dysfunction following radical hysterectomy in women with cervical cancer. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of postoperative interventions for preventing bladder dysfunction following radical hysterectomy in women with early-stage cervical cancer (stage IA2 to IIA2). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to April week 2, 2020), and Embase via Ovid (1980 to 2020, week 16). We also checked registers of clinical trials, grey literature, conference reports, and citation lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and safety of any type of postoperative interventions for preventing bladder dysfunction following a radical hysterectomy in women with stage IA2 to IIA2 cervical cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected potentially relevant RCTs, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, compared results, and made judgments on the quality and certainty of the evidence. We resolved any disagreements through discussion or consultation with a third review author. Outcomes of interest consisted of spontaneous voiding recovery one week after the operation, quality of life (QoL), adverse events, post-void residual urine volume one month after the operation, urinary tract infection over the one month following the operation, and subjective urinary symptoms. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1464 records as a result of the search (excluding duplicates). Of the 20 records that potentially met the review criteria, we included five reports of four studies. Most of the studies had unclear risks of selection and reporting biases. Of the four studies, one compared bethanechol versus placebo and three studies compared suprapubic catheterisation with intermittent self-catheterisation. We identified two ongoing studies. Bethanechol versus placebo The study reported no information on the rate of spontaneous voiding recovery at one week following the operation, QoL, adverse events, urinary tract infection in the first month after surgery, and subjective urinary symptoms for this comparison. The volume of post-void residual urine, assessed at one month after surgery, among women receiving bethanechol was lower than those in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -37.4 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) -60.35 to -14.45; one study, 39 participants; very-low certainty evidence). Suprapubic catheterisation versus intermittent self-catheterisation The studies reported no information on the rate of spontaneous voiding recovery at one week and post-void residual urine volume at one month following the operation for this comparison. There was no difference in risks of acute complication (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.49; one study, 71 participants; very low certainty evidence) and urinary tract infections during the first month after surgery (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.13; two studies, 95 participants; very- low certainty evidence) between participants who underwent suprapubic catheterisation and those who underwent intermittent self-catheterisation. Available data were insufficient to calculate the relative measures of the effect of interventions on QoL and subjective urinary symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: None of the included studies reported rate of spontaneous voiding recovery one week after surgery, time to a post-void residual volume of urine of 50 mL or less, or post-void residual urine volume at 6 and 12 months after surgery, all of which are important outcomes for assessing postoperative bladder dysfunction. Limited evidence suggested that bethanechol may minimise the risk of bladder dysfunction after radical hysterectomy by lowering post-void residual urine volume. The certainty of this evidence, however, was very low. The effectiveness of different types of postoperative urinary catheterisation (suprapubic and intermittent self-catheterisation) remain unproven.


Assuntos
Histerectomia/efeitos adversos , Cuidados Pós-Operatórios/métodos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/prevenção & controle , Doenças da Bexiga Urinária/prevenção & controle , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/cirurgia , Betanecol/uso terapêutico , Viés , Feminino , Humanos , Cateterismo Uretral Intermitente , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Parassimpatomiméticos/uso terapêutico , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Cateterismo Urinário/métodos , Infecções Urinárias/epidemiologia , Neoplasias do Colo do Útero/patologia
16.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(1): e24173, 2021 Jan 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33429802

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Whether the addition of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in routine western medicines for post-stroke depression yields additional therapeutic effects still remains to be controversial. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of combination of CHM with routine western medicines versus routine western medicines alone in patients with post-stroke depression (PSD). METHODS: Electronic databases such as PubMed, EmBase, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were systematically searched from inception till October 2019. Studies designed as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and that investigated the therapeutic effects of CHM plus routine western medicines (CHM group) versus routine western medicines alone (control group) in PSD patients were eligible. The relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to assess the categories and continuous data using random-effects model. Software STATA was applied to perform statistical analysis (Version 10.0; StataCorp, TX,). RESULTS: A total of 18 RCTs involving a total of 1,367 PSD patients were selected for final analysis. The effective rate in CHM group was significantly higher than that in control group (RR: 1.18; 95%CI: 1.12-1.24; P < .001). Moreover, patients in CHM group showed association with lower Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (WMD: -3.17; 95%CI: -4.12 to -2.22; P < .001) and Scandinavian Stroke Scale (WMD: -3.84; 95%CI: -5.73 to -1.96; P < .001) than those in control group. Furthermore, patients in CHM were associated with high level of Barthel Index than those in control group (WMD: 11.06; 95%CI: 4.01 to 18.10; P = .002). Finally, patients in CHM group had lower risk of gastrointestinal (RR: 0.49; 95%CI: 0.31-0.77; P = .002) and neurological (RR: 0.50; 95%CI: 0.33-0.75; P = .001) adverse events than those in control group. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings revealed that addition of CHM to routine therapies could improve the therapeutic effects and reduce gastrointestinal or neurological adverse events.


Assuntos
Depressão/tratamento farmacológico , Depressão/etiologia , Medicina Tradicional Chinesa/normas , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/complicações , Depressão/psicologia , Humanos , Medicina Tradicional Chinesa/métodos , Medicina Tradicional Chinesa/psicologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/psicologia
17.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(51): e23759, 2020 Dec 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33371138

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Xinyin Tablet (XYT) has been widely used in the treatment of CHF, Which helping to improve the clinical symptoms, enhance exercise, and even may improve the long-term prognosis of patients. However, the exact effectiveness and safety of XYT for CHF has not be comprehensively researched, so we want to generalize the effectiveness and safety of XYT for CHF through the meta-analysis, which may benefit the design of future clinical trials and provide valuable references. METHODS: This protocol complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. From the inception until September 2020, a systematic and comprehensive electronic search about Relevant randomized controlled trials will be conducted in 4 English literature databases and 4 Chinese literature databases. The registration number: INPLASY2020100015. 2 investigators will be arranged to deal with the study selection and data extraction independently. The New York Heart Function Classification, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) symptom scores, the scores of quality of life, 6-min walk distance (6MWD), etc. will be systematically measured as outcomes. At last, the data will be handled by Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 15.0. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: This study is hoping to provide a high-level evidence to prove the therapeutic effect of XYT on CHF, which may enhance the application of Chinese medicine.


Assuntos
Protocolos Clínicos , Insuficiência Cardíaca/tratamento farmacológico , Medicina Tradicional Chinesa/normas , Insuficiência Cardíaca/fisiopatologia , Humanos , Medicina Tradicional Chinesa/métodos , Medicina Tradicional Chinesa/tendências , Metanálise como Assunto , Peptídeo Natriurético Encefálico/análise , Qualidade de Vida/psicologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Ultrassonografia/métodos
18.
Med Mal Infect ; 50(8): 639-647, 2020 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33007400

RESUMO

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first reported in the city of Wuhan, China. The disease rapidly spread to the rest of China, to Southern-East Asia, then to Europe, America, and on to the rest of the world. COVID-19 is associated with a betacoronavirus named SARS-CoV-2. The virus penetrates the organism through the respiratory tract, conveyed by contaminated droplets. The main cell receptor targeted is the surface-bound ACE-2. As of the 26th July 2020, 15,200,000 COVID-19 cases and 650,000 deaths were reported worldwide. The mortality rate is estimated between 1.3 and 18.3%. The reproductive rate without any public health intervention is estimated around 4-5.1 in France. Most hospitalized patients for COVID-19 present respiratory symptoms, which in some cases is associated with fever. Up to 86% of admissions to ICU are related to acute respiratory failure. To date, no anti-viral therapy has proven its efficacy considering randomized trials. Only immunomodulatory treatments such as corticosteroids have shown to cause significant improvement in patient outcome.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Padrões de Prática Médica , Antivirais/classificação , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Betacoronavirus/fisiologia , China/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções por Coronavirus/virologia , Europa (Continente)/epidemiologia , França/epidemiologia , Humanos , Mortalidade , Pneumonia Viral/virologia , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/normas , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos
19.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD013600, 2020 10 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33044747

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 19 August 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, mortality (time to event), improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). MAIN RESULTS: This is the second living update of our review. We included 19 studies (2 RCTs, 8 controlled NRSIs, 9 non-controlled NRSIs) with 38,160 participants, of whom 36,081 received convalescent plasma. Two completed RCTs are awaiting assessment (published after 19 August 2020). We identified a further 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are randomised (3 reported in a study registry as already being completed, but without results). We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We did not include data from controlled NRSIs in data synthesis because of critical risk of bias. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low, due to study limitations and results including both potential benefits and harms.  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from two RCTs (both stopped early) with 189 participants, of whom 95 received convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.34; 1 RCT, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases mortality (time to event) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may result in little to no difference in improvement of clinical symptoms (i.e. need for respiratory support) at seven days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may increase improvement of clinical symptoms at up to 15 days (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.11; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence), and at up to 30 days (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43; 2 studies, 188 participants; low-certainty evidence).  No studies reported on quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from two RCTs, eight controlled NRSIs and nine non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of safety data and duration of follow-up was variable. The controlled studies reported on AEs and SAEs only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. Some, but not all, studies included death as a SAE.  The studies did not report the grade of AEs. Fourteen studies (566 participants) reported on AEs of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these AEs were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe AEs (very low-certainty evidence).  17 studies (35,944 participants) assessed SAEs for 20,622 of its participants. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (20,000 participants), which reported on SAEs within the first four hours and within an additional seven days after transfusion. There were 63 deaths, 12 were possibly and one was probably related to transfusion. There were 146 SAEs within four hours and 1136 SAEs within seven days post-transfusion. These were predominantly allergic or respiratory, thrombotic or thromboembolic and cardiac events. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy results in a clinically relevant increased risk of SAEs (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. There was limited information regarding grade 3 and 4 AEs to determine the effect of convalescent plasma therapy on clinically relevant SAEs. In the absence of a control group, we are unable to assess the relative safety of convalescent plasma therapy.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies is problematic. The early termination of the first two RCTs investigating convalescent plasma, and the lack of data from 20 studies that have completed or were due to complete at the time of this update illustrate these challenges. Well-designed studies should be prioritised. Moreover, studies should report outcomes in the same way, and should consider the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are RCTs (three already completed). This is the second living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. Future updates may show different results to those reported here.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Viés , Causas de Morte , Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Humanos , Imunização Passiva/efeitos adversos , Imunização Passiva/métodos , Imunização Passiva/estatística & dados numéricos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados não Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/mortalidade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Resultado do Tratamento
20.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 10: CD013686, 2020 10 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33047816

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Many dental procedures produce aerosols (droplets, droplet nuclei and splatter) that harbour various pathogenic micro-organisms and may pose a risk for the spread of infections between dentist and patient. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to greater concern about this risk. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of methods used during dental treatment procedures to minimize aerosol production and reduce or neutralize contamination in aerosols. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases on 17 September 2020: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (in the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946); Embase Ovid (from 1980); the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) performed by dental healthcare providers that evaluated methods to reduce contaminated aerosols in dental clinics (excluding preprocedural mouthrinses). The primary outcomes were incidence of infection in dental staff or patients, and reduction in volume and level of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment. The secondary outcomes were cost, accessibility and feasibility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened search results, extracted data from the included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the studies, and judged the certainty of the available evidence. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect estimate for continuous outcomes, and random-effects meta-analysis to combine data. We assessed heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies with 425 participants aged 5 to 69 years. Eight studies had high risk of bias; eight had unclear risk of bias. No studies measured infection. All studies measured bacterial contamination using the surrogate outcome of colony-forming units (CFU). Two studies measured contamination per volume of air sampled at different distances from the patient's mouth, and 14 studies sampled particles on agar plates at specific distances from the patient's mouth. The results presented below should be interpreted with caution as the evidence is very low certainty due to heterogeneity, risk of bias, small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. Moreover, we do not know the 'minimal clinically important difference' in CFU. High-volume evacuator Use of a high-volume evacuator (HVE) may reduce bacterial contamination in aerosols less than one foot (~ 30 cm) from a patient's mouth (MD -47.41, 95% CI -92.76 to -2.06; 3 RCTs, 122 participants (two studies had split-mouth design); very high heterogeneity I² = 95%), but not at longer distances (MD -1.00, -2.56 to 0.56; 1 RCT, 80 participants). One split-mouth RCT (six participants) found that HVE may not be more effective than conventional dental suction (saliva ejector or low-volume evacuator) at 40 cm (MD CFU -2.30, 95% CI -5.32 to 0.72) or 150 cm (MD -2.20, 95% CI -14.01 to 9.61). Dental isolation combination system One RCT (50 participants) found that there may be no difference in CFU between a combination system (Isolite) and a saliva ejector (low-volume evacuator) during AGPs (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.20) or after AGPs (MD -0.35, -0.99 to 0.29). However, an 'n of 1' design study showed that the combination system may reduce CFU compared with rubber dam plus HVE (MD -125.20, 95% CI -174.02 to -76.38) or HVE (MD -109.30, 95% CI -153.01 to -65.59). Rubber dam One split-mouth RCT (10 participants) receiving dental treatment, found that there may be a reduction in CFU with rubber dam at one-metre (MD -16.20, 95% CI -19.36 to -13.04) and two-metre distance (MD -11.70, 95% CI -15.82 to -7.58). One RCT of 47 dental students found use of rubber dam may make no difference in CFU at the forehead (MD 0.98, 95% CI -0.73 to 2.70) and occipital region of the operator (MD 0.77, 95% CI -0.46 to 2.00). One split-mouth RCT (21 participants) found that rubber dam plus HVE may reduce CFU more than cotton roll plus HVE on the patient's chest (MD -251.00, 95% CI -267.95 to -234.05) and dental unit light (MD -12.70, 95% CI -12.85 to -12.55). Air cleaning systems One split-mouth CCT (two participants) used a local stand-alone air cleaning system (ACS), which may reduce aerosol contamination during cavity preparation (MD -66.70 CFU, 95% CI -120.15 to -13.25 per cubic metre) or ultrasonic scaling (MD -32.40, 95% CI - 51.55 to -13.25). Another CCT (50 participants) found that laminar flow in the dental clinic combined with a HEPA filter may reduce contamination approximately 76 cm from the floor (MD -483.56 CFU, 95% CI -550.02 to -417.10 per cubic feet per minute per patient) and 20 cm to 30 cm from the patient's mouth (MD -319.14 CFU, 95% CI - 385.60 to -252.68). Disinfectants ‒ antimicrobial coolants Two RCTs evaluated use of antimicrobial coolants during ultrasonic scaling. Compared with distilled water, coolant containing chlorhexidine (CHX), cinnamon extract coolant or povidone iodine may reduce CFU: CHX (MD -124.00, 95% CI -135.78 to -112.22; 20 participants), povidone iodine (MD -656.45, 95% CI -672.74 to -640.16; 40 participants), cinnamon (MD -644.55, 95% CI -668.70 to -620.40; 40 participants). CHX coolant may reduce CFU more than povidone iodine (MD -59.30, 95% CI -64.16 to -54.44; 20 participants), but not more than cinnamon extract (MD -11.90, 95% CI -35.88 to 12.08; 40 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no studies that evaluated disease transmission via aerosols in a dental setting; and no evidence about viral contamination in aerosols. All of the included studies measured bacterial contamination using colony-forming units. There appeared to be some benefit from the interventions evaluated but the available evidence is very low certainty so we are unable to draw reliable conclusions. We did not find any studies on methods such as ventilation, ionization, ozonisation, UV light and fogging. Studies are needed that measure contamination in aerosols, size distribution of aerosols and infection transmission risk for respiratory diseases such as COVID-19 in dental patients and staff.


Assuntos
Microbiologia do Ar , Infecções Bacterianas/prevenção & controle , Controle de Infecções Dentárias/métodos , Doenças Profissionais/prevenção & controle , Viroses/prevenção & controle , Adolescente , Adulto , Aerossóis , Idoso , Filtros de Ar , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Contagem de Colônia Microbiana/métodos , Odontologia , Desinfetantes , Humanos , Controle de Infecções Dentárias/economia , Controle de Infecções Dentárias/instrumentação , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Diques de Borracha , Sucção , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...