Favipiravir for treating COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to challenge the health workforce and societies worldwide. Favipiravir was suggested by some experts to be effective and safe to use in COVID-19. Although this drug has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is still unclear if it has a definite role in the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of favipiravir compared to no treatment, supportive treatment, or other experimental antiviral treatment in people with acute COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, and three other databases, up to 18 July 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for RCTs evaluating the efficacy of favipiravir in treating people with COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures for data collection and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 trials that randomized 5750 adults (most under 60 years of age). The trials were conducted in Bahrain, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, the UK, and the USA. Most participants were hospitalized with mild to moderate disease (89%). Twenty-two of the 25 trials investigated the role of favipiravir compared to placebo or standard of care, whilst lopinavir/ritonavir was the comparator in two trials, and umifenovir in one trial. Most trials (24 of 25) initiated favipiravir at 1600 mg or 1800 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by 600 mg to 800 mg twice a day. The duration of treatment varied from five to 14 days. We do not know whether favipiravir reduces all-cause mortality at 28 to 30 days, or in-hospital (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.46; 11 trials, 3459 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 8 trials, 1383 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference in the need for admission to hospital (if ambulatory) (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.46; 4 trials, 670 participants; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if favipiravir reduces the time to clinical improvement (defined as time to a 2-point reduction in patients' admission status on the WHO's ordinal scale) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.83; 4 trials, 721 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may make little to no difference to the progression to oxygen therapy (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.75; 2 trials, 543 participants; low-certainty evidence). Favipiravir may lead to an overall increased incidence of adverse events (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.54; 18 trials, 4699 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may result in little to no difference inserious adverse eventsattributable to the drug (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.42; 12 trials, 3317 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The low- to very low-certainty evidence means that we do not know whether favipiravir is efficacious in people with COVID-19 illness, irrespective of severity or admission status. Treatment with favipiravir may result in an overall increase in the incidence of adverse events but may not result in serious adverse events.

Methylphenidate for children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated psychiatric disorders in childhood. Typically, children and adolescents with ADHD find it difficult to pay attention and they are hyperactive and impulsive. Methylphenidate is the psychostimulant most often prescribed, but the evidence on benefits and harms is uncertain. This is an update of our comprehensive systematic review on benefits and harms published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of methylphenidate for children and adolescents with ADHD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trials registers up to March 2022. In addition, we checked reference lists and requested published and unpublished data from manufacturers of methylphenidate. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention in children and adolescents aged 18 years and younger with a diagnosis of ADHD. The search was not limited by publication year or language, but trial inclusion required that 75% or more of participants had a normal intellectual quotient (IQ > 70). We assessed two primary outcomes, ADHD symptoms and serious adverse events, and three secondary outcomes, adverse events considered non-serious, general behaviour, and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment for each trial. Six review authors including two review authors from the original publication participated in the update in 2022. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Data from parallel-group trials and first-period data from cross-over trials formed the basis of our primary analyses. We undertook separate analyses using end-of-last period data from cross-over trials. We used Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA) to control for type I (5%) and type II (20%) errors, and we assessed and downgraded evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 212 trials (16,302 participants randomised); 55 parallel-group trials (8104 participants randomised), and 156 cross-over trials (8033 participants randomised) as well as one trial with a parallel phase (114 participants randomised) and a cross-over phase (165 participants randomised). The mean age of participants was 9.8 years ranging from 3 to 18 years (two trials from 3 to 21 years). The male-female ratio was 3:1. Most trials were carried out in high-income countries, and 86/212 included trials (41%) were funded or partly funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Methylphenidate treatment duration ranged from 1 to 425 days, with a mean duration of 28.8 days. Trials compared methylphenidate with placebo (200 trials) and with no intervention (12 trials). Only 165/212 trials included usable data on one or more outcomes from 14,271 participants. Of the 212 trials, we assessed 191 at high risk of bias and 21 at low risk of bias. If, however, deblinding of methylphenidate due to typical adverse events is considered, then all 212 trials were at high risk of bias. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: methylphenidate versus placebo or no intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.61; I² = 38%; 21 trials; 1728 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to a mean difference (MD) of -10.58 (95% CI -12.58 to -8.72) on the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS; range 0 to 72 points). The minimal clinically relevant difference is considered to be a change of 6.6 points on the ADHD-RS. Methylphenidate may not affect serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.67; I² = 0%; 26 trials, 3673 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 0.91 (CI 0.31 to 2.68). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: methylphenidate may cause more adverse events considered non-serious versus placebo or no intervention (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; I² = 72%; 35 trials 5342 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The TSA-adjusted intervention effect was RR 1.22 (CI 1.08 to 1.43). Methylphenidate may improve teacher-rated general behaviour versus placebo (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.33; I² = 68%; 7 trials 792 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but may not affect quality of life (SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.83; I² = 81%; 4 trials, 608 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The majority of our conclusions from the 2015 version of this review still apply. Our updated meta-analyses suggest that methylphenidate versus placebo or no-intervention may improve teacher-rated ADHD symptoms and general behaviour in children and adolescents with ADHD. There may be no effects on serious adverse events and quality of life. Methylphenidate may be associated with an increased risk of adverse events considered non-serious, such as sleep problems and decreased appetite. However, the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is very low and therefore the true magnitude of effects remain unclear. Due to the frequency of non-serious adverse events associated with methylphenidate, the blinding of participants and outcome assessors is particularly challenging. To accommodate this challenge, an active placebo should be sought and utilised. It may be difficult to find such a drug, but identifying a substance that could mimic the easily recognised adverse effects of methylphenidate would avert the unblinding that detrimentally affects current randomised trials. Future systematic reviews should investigate the subgroups of patients with ADHD that may benefit most and least from methylphenidate. This could be done with individual participant data to investigate predictors and modifiers like age, comorbidity, and ADHD subtypes.

Bite force of children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review aimed to assess bite force measurements in children and adolescents and to study the various devices that measure Maximum Voluntary Bite Force (MVBF). This systematic review included observational studies and experimental studies in children and adolescents (upto 19 years of age) which evaluated MVBF using a bite force measuring device. Studies on participants with systemic conditions were excluded. Databases such as PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and the Cochrane library were searched until September 2022, for which screening and quality assessment were performed. Newcastle-Ottawa, modified Newcastle-Ottawa and ROBINS-I tools were used to assess the Risk-of-bias. All observational studies reporting overall bite force values of participants were included for meta-analyses. A total of 8864 participants (3491 males and 3623 females) were included from 61 studies. Meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate mean average bite force value for each included dentition using R software v2.4-0. Estimation was done to derive an average BF value for variables such as age (dentition), gender, side, site, device and ethnicity. MVBF values were reported as mean average in the form of MLN with 95% CI (Confidence Interval). Using a random-effects model, 29 forest plots were generated. I2 values varied between 90% and 100%. Bite force ranged from 246.22 N (220.47; 274.98) to 311.72 N (255.99; 379.59) and 489.35 N (399.86; 598.87) in primary, mixed, and permanent dentitions, respectively. Six different sites for recording bite force and 11 different types of devices were reported with portable occlusal bite force gauge being the most common device. Outcomes of this review provide useful baseline reference values of bite force for clinicians and researchers.

Strategies to detect and manage latent tuberculosis infection among household contacts of pulmonary TB patients in high TB burden countries - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) management strategies among household contacts of bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) patients in high-TB burden countries. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE (NCBI) and Scopus were searched (January 2006 to December 2021) for studies reporting primary data on LTBI management. Study selection, data management and data synthesis were protocol-driven (PROSPERO-CRD42021208715). Primary outcomes were the proportions of LTBI, initiating and completing tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT). Reported factors influencing the LTBI care cascade were qualitatively synthesised. RESULTS: From 3694 unique records retrieved, 58 studies from 23 countries were included. Most identified contacts were screened (median 99%, interquartile range [IQR] 82%-100%; 46 studies). Random-effects meta-analysis yielded pooled proportions for: LTBI 41% (95% confidence interval [CI] 33%-49%; 21,566 tested contacts); TPT initiation 91% (95% CI 79%-97%; 129,573 eligible contacts, 34 studies); TPT completion 65% (95% CI 54%-74%; 108,679 TPT-initiated contacts, 28 studies). Heterogeneity was significant (I2 ≥ 95%-100%) and could not be explained in subgroup analyses. Median proportions (IQR) were: LTBI 44% (28%-59%); TPT initiation 86% (60%-100%); TPT completion 68% (44%-82%). Nine broad themes related to diagnostic testing, health system structure and functions, risk perception, documentation and adherence were considered likely to influence the LTBI care cascade. CONCLUSION: The proportions of household contacts screened, detected with LTBI and initiated on TPT, though variable was high, but the proportions completing TPT were lower indicating current strategies used for LTBI management in high TB burden countries are not sufficient.

Erbium lasers in non-surgical periodontal therapy: an umbrella review and evidence gap map analysis.

The literature on the efficacy of erbium lasers for nonsurgical periodontal therapy is inconsistent. The objective of the umbrella review was to collate the information available in the systematic reviews to provide a comprehensive synthesis of clinical and patient reported outcomes following the use of erbium lasers for non-surgical periodontal therapy. An electronic database search was carried out, and systematic reviews/meta-analyses which assessed the efficacy of erbium lasers as monotherapy or as an adjunct to scaling and root planing were included. The methodological quality and reporting quality of the included studies were assessed. 15 Systematic reviews/meta-analyses were obtained after title, abstract, and full text search. The meta-analyses data revealed a clinical attachment level gain, reduction in probing pocket depth at 1 and 3-month follow-up, and no additional benefit at ≥ 6-month follow-up in the erbium laser group. The evidence gap map revealed lack of clinical outcome data at > 6-month follow-up and dearth in studies assessing patient reported outcome measures and adverse events. Erbium lasers may provide short-term clinical benefits, and further studies with standardized laser parameters evaluating long-term follow-up, patient-reported outcome measures, and adverse events are needed.

Remarkable high frequency of insecure attachment in children with ADHD persists in a three-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Studies have pointed to a complicated and mutual relationship between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and attachment. In an observational follow-up study conducted in 2015 60 children from 7 years to 12 years recently diagnosed with ADHD were included and assessed according to attachment representation showing 85% of the children to be insecurely attached. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the stability of this remarkably high frequency of insecure attachment in the same cohort of children. METHODS: Children previously assessed using the child attachment interview (CAI) when diagnosed with ADHD were contacted three years later for a follow-up CAI assessment. RESULTS: At follow-up, 31 children participated in the CAI-interviews. Since their diagnosis with ADHD, the children had received treatment as usual. The CAI-interviews showed a continued high rate of insecure attachment with 90% of the children classifying as insecurely attached compared to expected 38% in the normal population. Of these, the majority of children (77%) were classified as dismissing. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that targeting ADHD-symptoms with our current treatment strategies does not in itself improve attachment security. Attachment security may in turn be a factor of importance when evaluating general functioning and prognosis.

Detection of second mesiobuccal canals in maxillary first molars of the Indian population - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to integrate the detection of second mesiobuccal (MB2) canals in maxillary first molars reported by different studies and methods on the Indian population.Methods This systematic review was conducted following Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Medline, LILACS, Science Direct, Clinicaltrials.gov, CTRI and Cochrane databases to identify manuscripts published until 20 May 2021. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility for inclusion, extracted data and assessed quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cross-sectional studies.Results The database search identified 534 citations, including 36 citations through manual search, and communications from authors. After removing duplicates and going through 534 abstracts followed by 26 full-text articles, 16 articles met the inclusion criteria and contributed data for the review. The included studies used CBCT, radiographs, direct vision (DV), dental operating microscope (DOM) or dental operating microscope with ultrasonic instrumentation (DOMI) for MB2 detection. Meta-analysis and forest plot showed a pooled prevalence of 64.76% of MB2 canals in permanent maxillary first molars using CBCT, 26.5% for DV, 60.4% for using magnification in addition to DV and 71.9% for DV and magnification assisted with ultrasonic instrumentation. The prevalence of MB2 was found to be more in men than women.Conclusion The pooled prevalence in this systematic review and meta-analysis for detection of MB2 canals using CBCT was 64.76% compared to the global prevalence of 73.8%. Further well-designed studies are required to establish maxillary first molar MB2 prevalence in the Indian population.

Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection.

BACKGROUND: Transfer of more than one embryo during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) increases multiple pregnancy rates resulting in an increased risk of maternal and perinatal morbidity. Elective single embryo transfer offers a means of minimising this risk, but this potential gain needs to be balanced against the possibility of jeopardising the overall live birth rate (LBR). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different policies for the number of embryos transferred in infertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology cycles. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialised register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to March 2020. We handsearched reference lists of articles and relevant conference proceedings. We also communicated with experts in the field regarding any additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different policies for the number of embryos transferred following IVF or ICSI in infertile women. Studies of fresh or frozen and thawed transfer of one to four embryos at cleavage or blastocyst stage were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. The primary outcomes were LBR and multiple pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates. We analysed data using risk ratios (RR), Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) and a fixed effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs in the review (2505 women). The main limitation was inadequate reporting of study methods and moderate to high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding. A majority of the studies had low numbers of participants. None of the trials compared repeated single embryo transfer (SET) with multiple embryo transfer. Reported results of multiple embryo transfer below refer to double embryo transfer. Repeated single embryo transfer versus multiple embryo transfer in a single cycle Repeated SET was compared with double embryo transfer (DET) in four studies of cleavage-stage transfer. In these studies the SET group received either two cycles of fresh SET (one study) or one cycle of fresh SET followed by one frozen SET (three studies). The cumulative live birth rate after repeated SET may be little or no different from the rate after one cycle of DET (RR 0.95, 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.82 to 1.10; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 985 participants; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 42% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the repeated SET would yield pregnancy rates between 34% and 46%. The multiple pregnancy rate associated with repeated SET is probably reduced compared to a single cycle of DET (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.21; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 985 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 13% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following repeated SET would be between 0% and 3%. The clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.12; I² = 47%; 3 studies, 943 participants; low-quality evidence) after repeated SET may be little or no different from the rate after one cycle of DET. There may be little or no difference in the miscarriage rate between the two groups. Single versus multiple embryo transfer in a single cycle A single cycle of SET was compared with a single cycle of DET in 13 studies, 11 comparing cleavage-stage transfers and three comparing blastocyst-stage transfers.One study reported both cleavage and blastocyst stage transfers. Low-quality evidence suggests that the live birth rate per woman may be reduced in women who have SET in comparison with those who have DET (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; I² = 0%; 12 studies, 1904 participants; low-quality evidence). Thus, for a woman with a 46% chance of live birth following a single cycle of DET, the chance following a single cycle of SET would be between 27% and 35%. The multiple pregnancy rate per woman is probably lower in those who have SET than those who have DET (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.22; I² = 0%; 13 studies, 1952 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 15% risk of multiple pregnancy following a single cycle of DET, the risk following a single cycle of SET would be between 2% and 4%. Low-quality evidence suggests that the clinical pregnancy rate may be lower in women who have SET than in those who have DET (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.77; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 1860 participants; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in the miscarriage rate between the two groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although DET achieves higher live birth and clinical pregnancy rates per fresh cycle, the evidence suggests that the difference in effectiveness may be substantially offset when elective SET is followed by a further transfer of a single embryo in fresh or frozen cycle, while simultaneously reducing multiple pregnancies, at least among women with a good prognosis. The quality of evidence was low to moderate primarily due to inadequate reporting of study methods and absence of masking those delivering, as well as receiving the interventions.

Nasogastric versus nasojejunal tube feeding for severe acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Nutrition is an important aspect of management in severe acute pancreatitis. Enteral nutrition has advantages over parenteral nutrition and is the preferred method of feeding. Enteral feeding via nasojejunal tube is often recommended, but its benefits over nasogastric feeding are unclear. The placement of a nasogastric tube is technically simpler than the placement of a nasojejunal tube. OBJECTIVES: To compare the mortality, morbidity, and nutritional status outcomes of people with severe acute pancreatitis fed via nasogastric tube versus nasojejunal tube. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS on 17 October 2019 without using any language restrictions. We also searched reference lists and conference proceedings for relevant studies and clinical trial registries for ongoing trials. We contacted authors for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing enteral feeding by nasogastric and nasojejunal tubes in participants with severe acute pancreatitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias of the included studies, and extracted data. This information was independently verified by the other review authors. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane to assess the risk of bias and perform data synthesis. We rated the certainty of evidence according to GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs that randomised a total of 220 adult participants from India, Scotland, and the USA. Two of the trial reports were available only as abstracts. The trials differed in the criteria used to rate the severity of acute pancreatitis, and three trials excluded those who presented in severe shock. The duration of onset of symptoms before presentation in the trials ranged from within one week to four weeks. The trials also differed in the methods used to confirm the placement of the tubes and in what was considered to be nasojejunal placement. We assessed none of the trials as at high risk of bias, though reporting of methods in four trials was insufficient to judge the risk of bias for one or more of the domains assessed. There was no evdence of effect with nasogastric or nasojejunal placement on the primary outcome of mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; 5 trials, 220 participants; very low-certainty evidence due to indirectness and imprecision). Similarly, there was no evidence of effect on the secondary outcomes for which data were available. These included organ failure (3 trials, 145 participants), rate of infection (2 trials, 108 participants), success rate (3 trials, 159 participants), complications associated with the procedure (2 trials, 80 participants), need for surgical intervention (3 trials, 145 participants), requirement of parenteral nutrition (2 trials, 80 participants), complications associated with feeds (4 trials, 195 participants), and exacerbation of pain (4 trials, 195 participants). However, the certainty of the evidence for these secondary outcomes was also very low due to indirectness and imprecision. Three trials (117 participants) reported on length of hospital stay, but the data were not suitable for meta-analysis. None of the trials reported data suitable for meta-analysis for the other secondary outcomes of this review, which included days taken to achieve full nutrition requirement, duration of tube feeding, and duration of analgesic requirement after feeding tube placement. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to conclude that there is superiority, inferiority, or equivalence between the nasogastric and nasojejunal mode of enteral tube feeding in people with severe acute pancreatitis.

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor administration for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) seems to play an important role in the process of embryo implantation and continuation of pregnancy. It has been used during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment for subfertile women with chronically thin endometrium and those with previous multiple IVF failures. It is currently unknown whether G-CSF is effective in improving results following assisted reproductive technology (ART). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of G-CSF in women undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in February 2019. We searched reference lists of relevant articles and handsearched relevant conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing G-CSF administration versus no treatment or placebo in subfertile women undergoing IVF treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live-birth rate and miscarriage rate following G-CSF administration. We have reported ongoing pregnancy rate in cases where studies did not report live birth but reported ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, adverse events, ectopic pregnancy rate, small for gestational age at birth, abnormally adherent placenta, and congenital anomaly rate. We analysed data using risk ratio (RR), Peto odds ratio and a fixed-effect model. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials involving 622 women who received G-CSF and 631 women who received placebo or no additional treatment during IVF. The main limitations in the quality of the evidence were inadequate reporting of study methods and high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding. We assessed only two of the 15 included trials as at a low risk of bias. None of the trials reported the primary effectiveness outcome of live-birth rate. We are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves ongoing pregnancy rate compared to control in subfertile women undergoing ART (RR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 2.42; 2 RCTs; participants = 263; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with 14% ongoing pregnancy rate, G-CSF administration would be expected to result in ongoing pregnancy rates between 12% and 35%. We are uncertain whether G-CSF administration reduces miscarriage rate (Peto odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.83; 3 RCTs; participants = 391; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence) compared to the control group in subfertile women undergoing ART. We are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves overall clinical pregnancy rate compared to control in subfertile women undergoing ART (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.01; 14 RCTs; participants = 1253; I² = 13%; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with 17% clinical pregnancy rate, G-CSF administration would be expected to result in clinical pregnancy rates between 23% and 35%. In the unselected IVF population, we are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves clinical pregnancy rate compared to the control group (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.60; 3 RCTs; participants = 404; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). G-CSF administration may improve clinical pregnancy rate in women with two or more previous IVF failures compared to the control group (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.85; 7 RCTs; participants = 643; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). In subfertile women with thin endometrium undergoing ART, we are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves clinical pregnancy rate compared to the control group (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.63; 4 RCTs; participants = 206; I² = 30%; low-quality evidence). No study reported on multiple pregnancy rate. Only four trials reported adverse events as an outcome, and none of them reported any major adverse events following either G-CSF administration or placebo/no treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In subfertile women undergoing ART, we are uncertain whether the administration of G-CSF improves ongoing pregnancy or overall clinical pregnancy rates or reduces miscarriage rate compared to no treatment or placebo, whether in all women or those with thin endometrium, based on very low-quality evidence. Low-quality evidence suggests that G-CSF administration may improve clinical pregnancy rate in women with two or more IVF failures, but the included studies had unclear allocation concealment or were at high risk of performance bias.

Virtual reality distraction for acute pain in children.

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) computer technology creates a simulated environment, perceived as comparable to the real world, with which users can actively interact. The effectiveness of VR distraction on acute pain intensity in children is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of virtual reality (VR) distraction interventions for children (0 to 18 years) with acute pain in any healthcare setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and four trial registries to October 2019. We also searched reference lists of eligible studies, handsearched relevant journals and contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over and cluster-RCTs, comparing VR distraction to no distraction, non-VR distraction or other VR distraction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological processes. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. The primary outcome was acute pain intensity (during procedure, and up to one hour post-procedure). Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, child satisfaction with VR, pain-related distress, parent anxiety, rescue analgesia and cost. We used GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs (1008 participants aged four to 18 years) undergoing various procedures in healthcare settings. We did not pool data because the heterogeneity in population (i.e. diverse ages and developmental stages of children and their different perceptions and reactions to pain) and variations in procedural conditions (e.g. phlebotomy, burn wound dressings, physical therapy sessions), and consequent level of pain experienced, made statistical pooling of data impossible. We narratively describe results. We judged most studies to be at unclear risk of selection bias, high risk of performance and detection bias, and high risk of bias for small sample sizes. Across all comparisons and outcomes, we downgraded the certainty of evidence to low or very low due to serious study limitations and serious or very serious indirectness. We also downgraded some of the evidence for very serious imprecision. 1: VR distraction versus no distraction Acute pain intensity: during procedure Self-report: one study (42 participants) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR (very low-certainty evidence). Observer-report: no data. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 62 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 42) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR. One study (n = 20) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Acute pain intensity: post-procedure Self-report: 10 studies, 461 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Four studies (n = 95) found no beneficial effect of immersive and semi-immersive or non-immersive VR. Five studies (n = 357) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Another study (n = 9) reported less pain in the VR group. Observer-report: two studies (216 participants; low-certainty evidence) found a beneficial effect of immersive VR, as reported by primary caregiver/parents or nurses. One study (n = 80) found a beneficial effect of immersive VR, as reported by researchers. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): one study (42 participants) found no beneficial effect of non-immersive VR (very low-certainty evidence). Adverse effects: five studies, 154 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Three studies (n = 53) reported no adverse effects. Two studies (n = 101) reported mild adverse effects (e.g. nausea) in the VR group. 2: VR distraction versus other non-VR distraction Acute pain intensity: during procedure Self-report, observer-report and behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 106 participants: Self-report: one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) found no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores (very low-certainty evidence). Observer-report: one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) found no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores (low-certainty evidence). Behavioural measurements (observer-report): one study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR and one (n = 41) reported a difference in mean pain change scores with fewer pain behaviours in VR group (low-certainty evidence). Acute pain intensity: post-procedure Self-report: eight studies, 575 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Two studies (n = 146) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Two studies (n = 252) reported a between-group difference favouring immersive VR. One study (n = 59) found no beneficial effect of immersive VR versus television and Child Life non-VR distraction. One study (n = 18) found no beneficial effect of semi-immersive VR. Two studies (n = 100) reported no between-group difference. Observer-report: three studies, 187 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 81) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR for parent, nurse and researcher reports. One study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR for caregiver reports. Another study (n = 41) reported no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores. Behavioural measurements (observer-report): two studies, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence. One study (n = 65) found a beneficial effect favouring immersive VR. Another study (n = 41) reported no evidence of a difference in mean pain change scores. Adverse effects: six studies, 429 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Three studies (n = 229) found no evidence of a difference between groups. Two studies (n = 141) reported no adverse effects in VR group. One study (n = 59) reported no beneficial effect in reducing estimated cyber-sickness before and after VR immersion. 3: VR distraction versus other VR distraction We did not identify any studies for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty and very low-certainty evidence of the effectiveness of VR distraction compared to no distraction or other non-VR distraction in reducing acute pain intensity in children in any healthcare setting. This level of uncertainty makes it difficult to interpret the benefits or lack of benefits of VR distraction for acute pain in children. Most of the review primary outcomes were assessed by only two or three small studies. We found limited data for adverse effects and other secondary outcomes. Future well-designed, large, high-quality trials may have an important impact on our confidence in the results.

Mapping factors facilitating resilience in mothers - potential clinical relevance for children with ADHD.

Background: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurobiological disorders in childhood. Maternal resilience has been linked to treatment outcome in child ADHD. However, not much is known about factors that may facilitate maternal resilience.Aim: The aim of this study was to explore factors potentially facilitating resilience in mothers to children with ADHD.Method: The current study was part of a naturalistic observational study. 64 mothers to children diagnosed with ADHD completed a set of questionnaires and a short protocol including demographic and psychosocial items. Correlation matrix were estimated for each of the scores to establish the relationship between them.Results: We found significant negative correlations between maternal self-reported attachment style and self-reported resilience and between self-reported ADHD-symptoms and resilience-score.Conclusion: The findings indicate that selected factors in maternal functioning may contribute to development of resilience, which may in turn be a factor of importance in parenting.

​Primary closure versus delayed or no closure for traumatic wounds due to mammalian bite.

BACKGROUND: Mammalian bites are a common presentation in emergency and primary healthcare facilities across the world. The World Health Organization recommends postponing the suturing of a bite wound but this has not been evaluated through a systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of primary closure compared with delayed closure or no closure for mammalian bite wounds. SEARCH METHODS: In July 2019 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials which compared primary closure with delayed or no closure for traumatic wounds due to mammalian bite. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text publications, applied the inclusion criteria, and extracted data. We pooled data using a random-effects model, as appropriate. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We found three trials (878 participants) that compared primary closure with no closure for dog bites and one trial (120 participants) that compared primary closure with delayed closure. No other mammalian bite studies were identified. The trials were from the UK (one trial), Greece (one trial) and China (two trials). Overall, participants from both sexes and all age groups were represented. We are uncertain whether primary closure improves the proportion of wounds which are infection-free compared with no closure, as the certainty of evidence for this outcome was judged to be very low (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.05; 2 studies, 782 participants; I2 = 0%). We downgraded the evidence by one level for high risk of bias and two levels for imprecision. There is no clinically important difference in cosmesis (acceptable physical/cosmetic appearance) of dog bite wounds when primary closure is compared with no closure (mean difference (MD) -1.31, 95% CI -2.03 to -0.59; 1 study, 182 participants). The certainty of evidence for this outcome was judged to be moderate (we downgraded our assessment by one level for imprecision). We are uncertain whether primary closure improves the proportion of dog bite wounds that are infection-free compared with delayed closure, as the evidence for this outcome was judged to be very low (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; 1 study, 120 participants; I2 = 0%). We downgraded the evidence by one level for high risk of bias and two levels for imprecision. None of the four trials reported any adverse outcomes such as death or rabies but they were, in any case, unlikely to have been large enough to have satisfactory power to provide precise estimates for these. Important outcomes like time to complete wound healing, proportion of wounds healed, and length of hospital stay were not evaluated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All the studies we identified concerned dog bites. There is no high-certainty evidence to support or refute existing recommendations concerning primary closure for dog bites. The potential benefits and harms of primary closure compared with delayed or no closure for mammalian bites remain uncertain and more robust trials are needed.

Shortened treatment regimens versus the standard regimen for drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis causes more deaths than any other infectious disease worldwide, with pulmonary tuberculosis being the most common form. Standard first-line treatment for drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis for six months comprises isoniazid, rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol (HRZE) for two months, followed by HRE (in areas of high TB drug resistance) or HR, given over a four-month continuation phase. Many people do not complete this full course. Shortened treatment regimens that are equally effective and safe could improve treatment success. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of shortened treatment regimens versus the standard six-month treatment regimen for individuals with drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 10 July 2019: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase; the Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS); Science Citation Index-Expanded; Indian Medlars Center; and the South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Clinical Trials Unit of the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, the UK Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, and the Clinical Trials Registry India for ongoing trials. We checked the reference lists of identified articles to find additional relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared shorter-duration regimens (less than six months) versus the standard six-month regimen for people of all ages, irrespective of HIV status, who were newly diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis by positive sputum culture or GeneXpert, and with presumed or proven drug-sensitive tuberculosis. The primary outcome of interest was relapse within two years of completion of anti-tuberculosis treatment (ATT). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for the included trials. For dichotomous outcomes, we used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When appropriate, we pooled data from the included trials in meta-analyses. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included five randomized trials that compared fluoroquinolone-containing four-month ATT regimens versus standard six-month ATT regimens and recruited 5825 adults with newly diagnosed drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis from 14 countries with high tuberculosis transmission in Asia, Africa, and Latin Ameria. Three were multi-country trials that included a total of 572 HIV-positive people. These trials excluded children, pregnant or lactating women, people with serious comorbid conditions, and those with diabetes mellitus. Four trials had multiple treatment arms. Moxifloxacin replaced ethambutol in standard four-month, daily or thrice-weekly ATT regimens in two trials; moxifloxacin replaced isoniazid in four-month ATT regimens in two trials, was given daily in one trial, and was given with rifapentine instead of rifampicin daily for two months and twice weekly for two months in one trial. Moxifloxacin was added to standard ATT drugs for three to four months in one ongoing trial that reported interim results. Gatifloxacin replaced ethambutol in standard ATT regimens given daily or thrice weekly for four months in two trials. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 24 months after treatment completion for the majority of participants. Moxifloxacin-containing four-month ATT regimens Moxifloxacin-containing four-month ATT regimens that replaced ethambutol or isoniazid probably increased the proportions who experienced relapse after successful treatment compared to standard ATT regimens (RR 3.56, 95% CI 2.37 to 5.37; 2265 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). For death from any cause, there was probably little or no difference between the two regimens (2760 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Treatment failure was rare, and there was probably little or no difference in proportions with treatment failure between ATT regimens (2282 participants, 3 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the participants given moxifloxacin-containing regimens developed resistance to rifampicin, and these regimens may not increase the risk of acquired resistance (2282 participants, 3 trials; low-certainty evidence). Severe adverse events were probably little or no different with moxifloxacin-containing four-month regimens that replaced ethambutol or isoniazid, and with three- to four-month regimens that augmented standard ATT with moxifloxacin, when compared to standard six-month ATT regimens (3548 participants, 4 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Gatifloxacin-containing four-month ATT regimens Gatifloxacin-containing four-month ATT regimens that replaced ethambutol probably increased relapse compared to standard six-month ATT regimens in adults with drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.84; 1633 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). The four-month regimen probably made little or no difference in death compared to the six-month regimen (1886 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Treatment failure was uncommon and was probably little or no different between the four-month and six-month regimens (1657 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Acquired resistance to isoniazid or rifampicin was not detected in those given the gatifloxacin-containing shortened ATT regimen, but we are uncertain whether acquired drug resistance is any different in the four- and six-month regimens (429 participants, 1 trial; very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events were probably no different with either regimen (1993 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence to date does not support the use of shortened ATT regimens in adults with newly diagnosed drug-sensitive pulmonary tuberculosis. Four-month ATT regimens that replace ethambutol with moxifloxacin or gatifloxacin, or isoniazid with moxifloxacin, increase relapse substantially compared to standard six-month ATT regimens, although treatment success and serious adverse events are little or no different. The results of six large ongoing trials will help inform decisions on whether shortened ATT regimens can replace standard six-month ATT regimens. 9 December 2019 Up to date All studies incorporated from most recent search All eligible published studies found in the last search (10 Jul, 2019) were included.

Perinatal outcomes after stimulated versus natural cycle IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pregnancies resulting from assisted reproductive techniques are at higher risk of adverse perinatal outcomes compared with spontaneous conceptions. Underlying infertility and IVF procedures have been linked to adverse perinatal outcomes. It is important to know if ovarian stimulation influences perinatal outcomes after IVF. A systematic search for relevant studies was conducted up to November 2016 on the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, DARE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Perinatal outcomes included preterm birth (PTB), low birth weight (LBW), small for gestational age (SGA), large for gestational age (LGA) and congenital anomalies. Data from four studies, which included a total of 96,996 and 704 singleton live births after stimulated IVF and natural or modified natural cycle IVF, were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of PTB (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.58) and LBW (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.67) were significantly higher after stimulated compared with natural or modified natural cycle IVF. Data from one study were available for SGA, LGA, congenital anomalies and no significant differences were reported between the groups. This study suggests a higher risk of PTB and LBW after stimulated IVF compared with natural or modified natural IVF, although the absolute increase in risk may be low.

Botulinum toxin for motor and phonic tics in Tourette's syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Gilles de la Tourette syndrome, or Tourette's syndrome, is defined as the presence of both motor and vocal (phonic) tics for more than 12 months, that manifest before the age of 18 years, in the absence of secondary causes. Treatment of motor and phonic tics is difficult and challenging. OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety and effectiveness of botulinum toxin in treating motor and phonic tics in people with Tourette's syndrome, and to analyse the effect of botulinum toxin on premonitory urge and sensory tics. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and two trials registers to 25 October 2017. We reviewed reference lists of relevant articles for additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised, controlled, double-blind studies comparing botulinum toxin to placebo or other medications for the treatment of motor and phonic tics in Tourette's syndrome for this review. We sought both parallel group and cross-over studies of children or adults, at any dose, and for any duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods to select studies, assess risk of bias, extract and analyse data. All authors independently abstracted data onto standardized forms; disagreements were resolved by mutual discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Only one randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind cross-over study met our selection criteria. In this study, 20 participants with motor tics were enrolled over a three-year recruitment period; 18 (14 of whom had a diagnosis of Tourette's syndrome) completed the study; in total, 21 focal motor tics were treated. Although we considered most bias domains to be at low risk of bias, the study recruited a small number of participants with relatively mild tics and provided limited data for our key outcomes. The effects of botulinum toxin injections on tic frequency, measured by videotape or rated subjectively, and on premonitory urge, are uncertain (very low-quality evidence). The quality of evidence for adverse events following botulinum toxin was very low. Nine people had muscle weakness following the injection, which could have led to unblinding of treatment group assignment. No data were available to evaluate whether botulinum injections led to immunoresistance to botulinum. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain about botulinum toxin effects in the treatment of focal motor and phonic tics in select cases, as we assessed the quality of the evidence as very low. Additional randomised controlled studies are needed to demonstrate the benefits and harms of botulinum toxin therapy for the treatment of motor and phonic tics in patients with Tourette's syndrome.

Final-impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures.

BACKGROUND: Edentulism is relatively common and is often treated with the provision of complete or partial removable dentures. Clinicians make final impressions of complete dentures (CD) and removable partial dentures (RPD) using different techniques and materials. Applying the correct impression technique and material, based on an individual's oral condition, improves the quality of the prosthesis, which may improve quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different final-impression techniques and materials used to make complete dentures, for retention, stability, comfort, and quality of life in completely edentulous people.To assess the effects of different final-impression techniques and materials used to make removable partial dentures, for stability, comfort, overextension, and quality of life in partially edentulous people. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 22 November 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Register of Studies, to 22 November 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 November 2017), and Embase Ovid (21 December 2015 to 22 November 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases, however the search of Embase was restricted by date due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different final-impression techniques and materials for treating people with complete dentures (CD) and removable partial dentures (RPD). For CD, we included trials that compared different materials or different techniques or both. In RPD for tooth-supported conditions, we included trials comparing the same material and different techniques, or different materials and the same technique. In tooth- and tissue-supported RPD, we included trials comparing the same material and different dual-impression techniques, and different materials with different dual-impression techniques. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently, and in duplicate, screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for each included trial. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using the random-effects model. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables for the main comparisons and outcomes (participant-reported oral health-related quality of life, quality of the denture, and denture border adjustments). MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies in this review. Eight studies involved 485 participants with CD. We assessed six of the studies to be at high risk of bias, and two to be at low risk of bias. We judged one study on RPD with 72 randomised participants to be at high risk of bias.Overall, the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome was either low or very low, therefore, results should be interpreted with caution, as future research is likely to change the findings.Complete denturesTwo studies compared the same material and different techniques (one study contributed data to a secondary outcome only); two studies compared the same technique and different materials; and four studies compared different materials and techniques.One study (10 participants) evaluated two stage-two step, Biofunctional Prosthetic system (BPS) using additional silicone elastomer compared to conventional methods, and found no evidence of a clear difference for oral health-related quality of life, or quality of the dentures (denture satisfaction). The study reported that BPS required fewer adjustments. We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.One study (27 participants) compared selective pressure final-impression technique using wax versus polysulfide elastomeric (rubber) material. The study did not measure quality of life or dentures, and found no evidence of a clear difference between interventions in the need for adjustments (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.70). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.One study compared two stage-two step final impression with alginate versus silicone elastomer. Oral health-related quality of life measured by the OHIP-EDENT seemed to be better with silicone (MD 7.20, 95% CI 2.71 to 11.69; 144 participants). The study found no clear differences in participant-reported quality of the denture (comfort) after a two-week 'confirmation' period, but reported that silicone was better for stability and chewing efficiency. We assessed the quality of the evidence as low.Three studies compared single-stage impressions with alginate versus two stage-two step with elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) impressions. There was no evidence of a clear difference in the OHIP-EDENT at one month (MD 0.05, 95% CI -2.37 to 2.47; two studies, 98 participants). There was no evidence of a clear difference in participant-rated general satisfaction with dentures at six months (MD 0.00, 95% CI -8.23 to 8.23; one study, 105 participants). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.One study compared single-stage alginate versus two stage-two step using zinc-oxide eugenol, and found no evidence of a clear difference in OHIP-EDENT (MD 0.50, 95% CI -2.67 to 3.67; 39 participants), or general satisfaction (RR 3.15, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.88; 39 participants) at six months. We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.Removable partial denturesOne study randomised 72 participants and compared altered-cast technique versus one-piece cast technique. The study did not measure quality of life, but reported that most participants were satisfied with the dentures and there was no evidence of any clear difference between groups for general satisfaction at one-year follow-up (low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a clear difference in number of intaglio adjustments at one year (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.34) (very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is no clear evidence that one technique or material has a substantial advantage over another for making complete dentures and removable partial dentures. Available evidence for the relative benefits of different denture fabrication techniques and final-impression materials is limited and is of low or very low quality. More high-quality RCTs are required.

Ghrelin for the management of cachexia associated with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer sufferers are amongst the most malnourished of all the patient groups. Studies have shown that ghrelin, a gut hormone can be a potential therapeutic agent for cachexia (wasting syndrome) associated with cancer. A variety of mechanisms of action of ghrelin in people with cancer cachexia have been proposed. However, safety and efficacy of ghrelin for cancer-associated cachexia have not been systematically reviewed. The aim of this review was to assess whether ghrelin is associated with better food intake, body composition and survival than other options for adults with cancer cachexia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of ghrelin in improving food intake, body composition and survival in people with cachexia associated with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase without language restrictions up to July 2017. We also searched for ongoing studies in trials registers, performed handsearching, checked bibliographic references of relevant articles and contacted authors and experts in the field to seek potentially relevant research. We applied no restrictions on language, date, or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled (parallel-group or cross-over) trials comparing ghrelin (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active comparator in adults (aged 18 years and over) who met any of the international criteria for cancer cachexia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. Two review authors then extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for individual studies using standard Cochrane methodology. For dichotomous variables, we planned to calculate risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and for continuous data, we planned to calculate mean differences (MD) with 95% CI. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We screened 926 individual references and identified three studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Fifty-nine participants (37 men and 22 women) aged between 54 and 78 years were randomised initially, 47 participants completed the treatment. One study had a parallel design and two had a cross-over design. The studies included people with a variety of cancers and also differed in the dosage, route of administration, frequency and duration of treatment.One trial, which compared ghrelin with placebo, found that ghrelin improved food intake (very low-quality evidence) and had no adverse events (very low-quality evidence). Due to unavailability of data we were unable to report on comparisons for ghrelin versus no treatment or alternative experimental treatment modalities, or ghrelin in combination with other treatments or ghrelin analogues/ghrelin mimetics/ghrelin potentiators. Two studies compared a higher dose of ghrelin with a lower dose of ghrelin, however due to differences in study designs and great diversity in the treatment provided we did not pool the results. In both trials, food intake did not differ between participants on higher-dose and lower-dose ghrelin. None of the included studies assessed data on body weight. One study reported higher adverse events with a higher dose as compared to a lower dose of ghrelin.All studies were at high risk of attrition bias and bias for size of the study. Risk of bias in other domains was unclear or low.We rated the overall quality of the evidence for primary outcomes (food intake, body weight, adverse events) as very low. We downgraded the quality of the evidence due to lack of data, high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and small study size. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to be able to support or refute the use of ghrelin in people with cancer cachexia. Adequately powered randomised controlled trials focusing on evaluation of safety and efficacy of ghrelin in people with cancer cachexia is warranted.

Interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding due to stress ulcers contributes to increased morbidity and mortality in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Stress ulceration refers to GI mucosal injury related to the stress of being critically ill. ICU patients with major bleeding as a result of stress ulceration might have mortality rates approaching 48.5% to 65%. However, the incidence of stress-induced GI bleeding in ICUs has decreased, and not all critically ill patients need prophylaxis. Stress ulcer prophylaxis can result in adverse events such as ventilator-associated pneumonia; therefore, it is necessary to evaluate strategies that safely decrease the incidence of GI bleeding. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect and risk-benefit profile of interventions for preventing upper GI bleeding in people admitted to ICUs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 23 August 2017, using relevant search terms: MEDLINE; Embase; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature; and the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Disease Group Specialised Register, as published in the Cochrane Library (2017, Issue 8). We searched the reference lists of all included studies and those from relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses to identify additional studies. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal and contacted individual researchers working in this field, as well as organisations and pharmaceutical companies, to identify unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with participants of any age and gender admitted to ICUs for longer than 48 hours. We excluded studies in which participants were admitted to ICUs primarily for the management of GI bleeding and studies that compared different doses, routes, and regimens of one drug in the same class because we were not interested in intraclass effects of drugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2292 unique records.We included 129 records reporting on 121 studies, including 12 ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification.We judged the overall risk of bias of two studies as low. Selection bias was the most relevant risk of bias domain across the included studies, with 78 studies not clearly reporting the method used for random sequence generation. Reporting bias was the domain with least risk of bias, with 12 studies not reporting all outcomes that researchers intended to investigate.Any intervention versus placebo or no prophylaxisIn comparison with placebo, any intervention seems to have a beneficial effect on the occurrence of upper GI bleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.57; moderate certainty of evidence). The use of any intervention reduced the risk of upper GI bleeding by 10% (95% CI -12.0% to -7%). The effect estimate of any intervention versus placebo or no prophylaxis with respect to the occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU, duration of ICU stay, duration of intubation (all with low certainty of evidence), the number of participants requiring blood transfusions (moderate certainty of evidence), and the units of blood transfused was consistent with benefits and harms. None of the included studies explicitly reported on serious adverse events.Individual interventions versus placebo or no prophylaxisIn comparison with placebo or no prophylaxis, antacids, H2 receptor antagonists, and sucralfate were effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients. Researchers found that with H2 receptor antagonists compared with placebo or no prophylaxis, 11% less developed upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.16 to -0.06; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.70; 24 studies; 2149 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). Of ICU patients taking antacids versus placebo or no prophylaxis, 9% less developed upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.17 to -0.00; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.99; eight studies; 774 participants; low certainty of evidence). Among ICU patients taking sucralfate versus placebo or no prophylaxis, 5% less had upper GI bleeding (95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.88; seven studies; 598 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). The remaining interventions including proton pump inhibitors did not show a significant effect in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients when compared with placebo or no prophylaxis.Regarding the occurrence of nosocomial pneumonia, the effects of H2 receptor antagonists (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.48; eight studies; 945 participants; low certainty of evidence) and of sucralfate (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.04; four studies; 450 participants; low certainty of evidence) were consistent with benefits and harms when compared with placebo or no prophylaxis. None of the studies comparing antacids versus placebo or no prophylaxis provided data regarding nosocomial pneumonia.H2 receptor antagonists versus proton pump inhibitorsH2 receptor antagonists and proton pump inhibitors are most commonly used in practice to prevent upper GI bleeding in ICU patients. Proton pump inhibitors significantly more often prevented upper GI bleeding in ICU patients compared with H2 receptor antagonists (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.83 to 4.58; 18 studies; 1636 participants; low certainty of evidence). When taking H2 receptor antagonists, 4.8% more patients might experience upper GI bleeding (95% CI 2.1% to 9%). Nosocomial pneumonia occurred in similar proportions of participants taking H2 receptor antagonists and participants taking proton pump inhibitors (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.35; 10 studies; 1256 participants; low certainty of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that antacids, sucralfate, and H2 receptor antagonists might be more effective in preventing upper GI bleeding in ICU patients compared with placebo or no prophylaxis. The effect estimates of any treatment versus no prophylaxis on nosocomial pneumonia were consistent with benefits and harms. Evidence of low certainty suggests that proton pump inhibitors might be more effective than H2 receptor antagonists. Therefore, patient-relevant benefits and especially harms of H2 receptor antagonists compared with proton pump inhibitors need to be assessed by larger, high-quality RCTs to confirm the results of previously conducted, smaller, and older studies.