Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews最新文献

{"title":"Treatment for symptomatic hypermobility in childhood.","authors":"Rachal Quinlan, Kelly Gray, Luke M Davies, Louise Tofts, Cylie M Williams, Alan J Hakim, Verity Pacey","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016390","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD016390","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This is a protocol for a Cochrane review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the benefits and harms of conservative, pharmacological, surgical, and multi-component interventions for musculoskeletal symptoms in children with hypermobility-associated conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"9 ","pages":"CD016390"},"PeriodicalIF":11.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13548365/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148900349","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Interventions for replacing missing teeth: antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant placement with bone augmentation procedures.","authors":"Riccardo Federico Visconti, Hassan Maghaireh, Caroline Bolle, Marco Esposito","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016385","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD016385","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This is a protocol for a Cochrane review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the benefits and harms of systemic prophylactic antibiotics versus no antibiotics or placebo in people undergoing dental implant placement with concomitant bone augmentation procedures, and to assess whether the effects of systemic prophylactic antibiotics differ according to the dosage, duration, timing of administration, and type of antibiotic.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"9 ","pages":"CD016385"},"PeriodicalIF":11.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13543260/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148891101","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.","authors":"Magdalena Bofill Rodriguez, Li Ning Yong, Sanja Mirkov, Christine Bekos, Anne Lethaby, Cindy Farquhar","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD004143.pub7","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD004143.pub7","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Hormone therapy is widely provided to control menopausal symptoms and has been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2005.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To assess the long-term effects of prolonged use (at least one year) of hormone therapy on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fractures and cognition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Search methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We used the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 26 September 2024.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Selection criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;We included randomised, double-blind trials in which peri- or postmenopausal women took hormone therapy or placebo for at least one year. We included various oestrogen formulations, with or without progestogens. We focused on studies assessing hormone therapy's effects on long-term clinical outcomes, including death, coronary events and cancer. Hormone therapy's efficacy in managing menopausal symptoms was beyond the scope of this review, and is assessed in other Cochrane reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Data collection and analysis: &lt;/strong&gt;Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Main results: &lt;/strong&gt;We included 24 studies - with two newly added in this update - involving 45,660 participants. We derived nearly 70% of the data from two well-conducted studies: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS 1998) and the large, multi-component Women's Health Initiative research programme, which included two hormone therapy arms (WHI 1998). Across all the studies, most participants were postmenopausal American women with one or more comorbidities. The mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. Only one included study focused on perimenopausal women. We present full results for all included studies with available data in the main review. The results presented below are drawn from WHI 1998, in which the combined hormone therapy arm and the oestrogen-only arm were run concurrently, with women assigned to the appropriate trial based on their uterus status. One study with 16,608 postmenopausal women with an intact uterus compared combined continuous hormone therapy (conjugated equine oestrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate) to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of 5.6 years of follow-up. Based on this study, combined continuous hormo","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"9 ","pages":"CD004143"},"PeriodicalIF":11.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13543657/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148891124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Neonatal complications in late-preterm and early-term infants: a systematic review of observational studies.","authors":"Katarzyna Wróblewska-Seniuk, Muhammad Arham, Milena Geist, Maria Björklund, Christopher J Rose, Greta Sibrecht, Franciszek Borys, Roger F Soll, Michelle Fiander, Matteo Bruschettini","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016188","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD016188","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This is a protocol for a Cochrane review (flexible). The objectives are as follows: To assess neonatal complications, specifically neonatal mortality and morbidities, in late-preterm and early-term infants compared to full-term newborns.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"9 ","pages":"CD016188"},"PeriodicalIF":11.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13543261/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148891113","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Multisensory stimulation for promoting development and preventing morbidity in preterm infants.","authors":"Katarzyna Wróblewska-Seniuk, Mikaela Lenells, Marcus G Prescott, Michelle Fiander, Roger F Soll, Matteo Bruschettini","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016073.pub2","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD016073.pub2","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rationale: &lt;/strong&gt;Multisensory stimulation is a structured, developmentally appropriate intervention that provides simultaneous or sequential stimulation of two or more senses (e.g. tactile, auditory, visual, or vestibular) in a controlled and non-stressful manner, with the aim of supporting early neurodevelopment in preterm infants. It has the potential to enhance physiological regulation in preterm infants by stabilizing key functions, such as respiratory patterns, heart rate, and oxygen saturation; reducing the need for respiratory support; and improving feeding performance and sleep regulation. Targeted multisensory interventions have also been associated with improved neurodevelopmental outcomes, including enhanced psychomotor development and visual function.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To assess the benefits and harms of multisensory stimulation compared to any single sensory intervention or standard care on major neurodevelopmental disability, mortality, and growth in preterm infants.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Search methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, two trial registries, and conference abstracts up to 28 November 2025. We checked reference lists of included trials, and systematic reviews on sensory interventions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eligibility criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;We included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multisensory stimulation in preterm infants with no intervention (placebo or standard care), and one RCT comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense stimulation (tactile stimulation).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Outcomes: &lt;/strong&gt;Our critical outcomes were major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months: cerebral palsy (CP), developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, sensorineural deafness; death during initial hospitalization; and total weight gain (grams), assessed at discharge. When comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense intervention, we also included weight gain during the intervention, an outcome added during the post-hoc analysis. Important outcomes were duration of hospital stay, of NICU stay, and of respiratory support; and time until full oral feeding.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Risk of bias: &lt;/strong&gt;We used the Cochrane tool, RoB 2.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We conducted meta-analyses using fixed-effect models to calculate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, each with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the I&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; statistic when we included more than two trials in a meta-analysis. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Included studies: &lt;/strong&gt;We included 19 trials (1554 newborn infants): 18 studies compared multisensory stimulation with standard care; one compared multisensory stimulation with single-sensory stimulation (tactile). In 10 studies, the primary aim was to assess the neur","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"9 ","pages":"CD016073"},"PeriodicalIF":11.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13539584/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148886518","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus.","authors":"Emily S Shepherd, Shona Goldsmith, Lex W Doyle, Philippa Middleton, Stéphane Marret, Dwight J Rouse, Peter Pryde, Hanne T Wolf, Caroline A Crowther","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD004661.pub5","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD004661.pub5","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Magnesium sulphate is a common therapy in perinatal care. Its benefits when given to women at risk of preterm birth for fetal neuroprotection (prevention of cerebral palsy for children) were shown in a 2009 Cochrane review. Internationally, use of magnesium sulphate for preterm cerebral palsy prevention is now recommended practice. As new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longer-term follow-up of prior RCTs have since been conducted, this review updates the previously published version.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To assess the effectiveness and safety of magnesium sulphate as a fetal neuroprotective agent when given to women considered to be at risk of preterm birth.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Search methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 March 2023, as well as reference lists of retrieved studies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Selection criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs of women at risk of preterm birth that assessed prenatal magnesium sulphate for fetal neuroprotection compared with placebo or no treatment. All methods of administration (intravenous, intramuscular, and oral) were eligible. We did not include studies where magnesium sulphate was used with the primary aim of preterm labour tocolysis, or the prevention and/or treatment of eclampsia.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Data collection and analysis: &lt;/strong&gt;Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and trustworthiness. Dichotomous data were presented as summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and continuous data were presented as mean differences with 95% CI. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Main results: &lt;/strong&gt;We included six RCTs (5917 women and their 6759 fetuses alive at randomisation). All RCTs were conducted in high-income countries. The RCTs compared magnesium sulphate with placebo in women at risk of preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation; however, treatment regimens and inclusion/exclusion criteria varied. Though the RCTs were at an overall low risk of bias, the certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low, due to concerns regarding study limitations, imprecision, and inconsistency. Primary outcomes for infants/children: Up to two years' corrected age, magnesium sulphate compared with placebo reduced cerebral palsy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89; 6 RCTs, 6107 children; number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 60, 95% CI 41 to 158) and death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 6 RCTs, 6481 children; NNTB 56, 95% CI 32 to 363) (both high-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 6 RCTs, 6759 children); major ","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"9 ","pages":"CD004661"},"PeriodicalIF":11.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13539583/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148886551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Assistive technologies (lumbar supports and other devices) for treating chronic low back pain.","authors":"Chiara Arienti, Stefano Giuseppe Lazzarini, Fabio Zaina, Claudio Cordani, Fulvio Dal Farra, Silvia Minozzi, Carlotte Kiekens, Stefano Negrini","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD015492.pub2","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD015492.pub2","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rationale: &lt;/strong&gt;Low back pain (LBP) is a major global health problem. It is the most common cause of activity limitation amongst individuals younger than 45 years, and one of the most frequent reasons for visits to a doctor. The 2019 Global Burden of Disease study named LBP as the leading cause of the need for rehabilitation, estimated to affect 568 million people. Its socioeconomic burden is substantial, with LBP-related costs from productivity loss and healthcare services utilisation making a significant impact on national gross domestic products. In particular, chronic LBP (CLBP)-defined as pain, muscle tension, or stiffness lasting longer than 12 weeks-results in long-term suffering and a considerable increase in healthcare expenditure. A wide variety of assistive technologies are utilised to manage CLBP. These aim to provide mechanical support, using diverse modalities and levels of assistance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To assess the benefits and harms of assistive technologies (i.e. non-rigid and rigid lumbar braces, belts, supports, and devices to assist mobility and gait) in adults with chronic low back pain (CLBP).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Search methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, and trials registries up to 7 January 2025. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and any relevant systematic reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eligibility criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with CLBP comparing all types of assistive technologies versus placebo/sham, no intervention, or usual care. We planned to include non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) in the absence of RCT evidence for some types of assistive devices.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Outcomes: &lt;/strong&gt;Our critical outcomes were pain, disability, health-related quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, falls, adverse events, and withdrawals due to any adverse events. Our important outcomes were depression, anxiety, social participation, and reduced use of painkillers. We did not assess the certainty of the evidence for important outcomes; thus, their results are not included in the abstract.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Risk of bias: &lt;/strong&gt;We used the Cochrane tool RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias in the studies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We conducted meta-analysis using the random-effects model to calculate the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for all outcomes. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. When pooling was not possible, we calculated effect estimates for individual studies; when data were not available, we summarised the results narratively.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Included studies: &lt;/strong&gt;We included eight RCTs involving a total of 501 participants. We did not identify any NRSIs meeting the inclusion criteria. Participants in the eight studies were adults of both sexes who had CLBP","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"9 ","pages":"CD015492"},"PeriodicalIF":11.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13533592/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148873384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Factors that impact on healthcare workers' adherence with infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines for COVID-19: a qualitative evidence synthesis.","authors":"Catherine Houghton, Pauline Meskell, Hannah Delaney, Sarah Sheehan, Cian O Donoghue, Claire Glenton, Andrew Booth, Gøril Jorem, Xin Hui S Chan, Declan Devane, Linda M Biesty","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016384","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD016384","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;The COVID-19 pandemic, declared in 2020, brought unprecedented challenges to our healthcare services in relation to the prevention and treatment of the disease. Additionally, preventing transmission within healthcare settings was critical. Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) guidelines are important for providing strategies on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), the separation of patients with respiratory infections from others, and stricter cleaning routines. It is important to examine how the context of the pandemic impacts healthcare workers' (HCW) ability to adhere to IPC guidance in pandemic situations in the future. This is an update of an earlier review version, published in 2020, titled 'Barriers and facilitators to healthcare workers' adherence with infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases: a rapid qualitative evidence synthesis'. We built on available evidence for infectious respiratory diseases, but also importantly, given the unprecedented global scale of COVID-19 and its unique challenges for healthcare systems, explored additional factors influencing IPC adherence specific to respiratory diseases with pandemic potential, i.e. infectious respiratory pathogens (such as novel influenza subtypes or coronaviruses) judged capable of causing a pandemic.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;Our primary objective is to identify the factors that impact on HCWs' adherence to IPC guidelines for COVID-19. A second objective is to update an existing rapid review, published in 2020, to identify similarities, differences, and novel insights specific to COVID-19 compared with other respiratory infectious diseases.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Search methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Scopus, Ovid PsycINFO (EBSCO), and Epistemonikos. We did not apply any language limits but only searched from 2020 to the present (last search 5 April 2024). In the interest of timeliness and relevance, we only included studies published from 2020. We chose this as it marks the year when the COVID-19 pandemic was declared.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Selection criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;We included qualitative and mixed methods studies that focused on the experiences and perceptions of HCWs towards factors that impact on their ability to adhere to IPC guidelines for COVID-19. We included studies of any type of healthcare worker with responsibility for patient care. We included studies that focused on IPC guidelines (local, national, or international) for COVID-19 in any healthcare setting. We excluded studies that collected data using qualitative methods (e.g. open-ended survey questions) in which the response data were analysed only with descriptive statistics.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Data collection and analysis: &lt;/strong&gt;We used a purposive sampling frame to identify data-rich studies that represented a range of HCWs, healthcare settings, and geographical spread. We assessed methodological strength","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"9 ","pages":"CD016384"},"PeriodicalIF":11.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13531657/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148863869","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Interventions for replacing missing teeth: antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant placement without bone augmentation procedures.","authors":"Marco Ab Esposito, Riccardo Federico Visconti, Maria Gabriella Grusovin, Katia Greco","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD004152.pub5","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD004152.pub5","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rationale: &lt;/strong&gt;Some dental implant failures may result from bacterial contamination at implant insertion, and biomaterial-related infections are difficult to treat. Antibiotic prophylaxis is generally indicated for patients at risk of infective endocarditis or with reduced host response, surgery at infected sites, extensive or prolonged procedures, or implantation of large foreign materials. Various prophylactic regimens, including short-term protocols, have been proposed to reduce post-implant infections. However, concerns about adverse events and antibiotic resistance make prophylactic antibiotic use in implant dentistry controversial.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To assess the beneficial or harmful effects of systemic prophylactic antibiotics at dental implant placement not subjected to concomitant bone augmentation procedures versus no antibiotic or placebo administration and, if antibiotics are beneficial, to determine which type, dosage, and duration is the most effective.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Search methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2013 to 19 November 2025.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eligibility criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of systemic prophylactic antibiotics at dental implant placement. We included trials that had a minimum follow-up of three months, included at least 10 participants per study arm, and involved implant placement performed without concomitant bone augmentation procedures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Outcomes: &lt;/strong&gt;Implant failures, prosthesis failures, postoperative infections, and adverse events, assessed up to one year following implant placement.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Risk of bias: &lt;/strong&gt;Two review authors assessed the risk of bias independently and in duplicate using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis methods: &lt;/strong&gt;Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses using random-effects models, and expressed results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed heterogeneity using the I² statistic and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Included studies: &lt;/strong&gt;We included 15 RCTs (2874 participants). Ten RCTs compared antibiotics versus placebo or no antibiotics; five RCTs compared single administration of antibiotics versus multiple administration of antibiotics; two RCTs compared preoperative versus postoperative antibiotic administration; and one RCT compared different antibiotics (amoxicillin versus clindamycin). Most studies used a single preoperative oral dose of 2 g.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis of results: &lt;/strong&gt;We judged eight trials to be at low risk of bias, and the remaining seven trials as at high risk of bias. Comparison 1: Antibiotics compared to placebo/no antibiotics Antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduces implant failures compared with placebo or no antibiotics (RR ","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"9 ","pages":"CD004152"},"PeriodicalIF":11.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13531660/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148863943","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Physical exercise training to increase cardiorespiratory fitness in people with spinal cord injury.","authors":"Jocemar Ilha, Joanne V Glinsky, Jackie Chu, Elizabeth A Bye, Sean M Tweedy, Lisa A Harvey","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD014476.pub2","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD014476.pub2","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rationale: &lt;/strong&gt;Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) is a key determinant of health, independence, and quality of life for people with spinal cord injury (SCI). It is therefore important to know whether, and to what extent, physical exercise training increases CRF in people with SCI.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To assess the short- (&lt; 6 weeks) and long-term (&gt; 6 weeks) effects (benefits and harms) of physical exercise training for improving CRF compared with no intervention in people with SCI.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Search methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and three other databases to 9 December 2025, and six clinical trials registries. Our search combined terms for the health condition (SCI), the intervention (physical exercise training) and the study design (randomised controlled trials and randomised cross-over trials).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eligibility criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;We included studies that compared physical exercise training programmes to improve CRF with no intervention. The physical exercise training needed to be a planned and structured exercise programme that included specific recommendations for the type, intensity, frequency, and duration of the training, with the aim of increasing CRF.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Outcomes: &lt;/strong&gt;The critical outcomes were CRF, functional fitness, quality of life, depression and anxiety, and adverse events. Other outcomes included perceived exertion during exercise, independence, physical activity levels, fatigue, and sleep quality.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Risk of bias: &lt;/strong&gt;We rated 96% of studies as being at high risk of bias for CRF using the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We pooled data in meta-analyses using random-effects models, provided there were two or more studies without marked clinical or statistical heterogeneity. We conducted subgroup analyses to determine the effects of the duration of physical exercise training programmes (&lt; 12 weeks versus ≥ 12 weeks), the frequency of physical exercise training (&lt; 3 times a week versus ≥ 3 times a week) and the intensity of physical exercise training (light intensity versus moderate to vigorous intensity). We applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Included studies: &lt;/strong&gt;We included 17 studies with a total of 505 participants. Only 15 studies (337 participants) provided data that we could use in one or more of the quantitative syntheses. Physical exercise training was provided via hand cycling, rowing, wheelchair propulsion, robotic gait training, walking/running and mixed gym equipment. Training was provided between two and five times per week for between six weeks and nine months. Each session lasted between 30 minutes and two hours. All studies examined the short-term effects of physical exercise training, and one study examined the long-term effects.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis of results: &lt;/strong&gt;Fifteen studies with 337 participants contributed data to a me","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"8 ","pages":"CD014476"},"PeriodicalIF":11.1,"publicationDate":"2026-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13523126/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148839395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}