The Cochrane database of systematic reviews最新文献

{"title":"Unlocking the power of global collaboration: building a stronger evidence ecosystem together.","authors":"Zoe Jordan, Vivian Welch, Karla Soares-Weiser","doi":"10.1002/14651858.ED000166","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000166","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":"17 17","pages":"ED000166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140697387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings.","authors":"Alexandru Marian Constantin, K. Noertjojo, Isolde Sommer, A. B. Pizarro, E. Persad, Solange Durão, B. Nussbaumer-Streit, D. McElvenny, Sarah Rhodes, Craig Martin, Olivia Sampson, K. Jørgensen, M. Bruschettini","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD015112.pub3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015112.pub3","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\u0000Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added.\u0000\u0000\u0000OBJECTIVES\u0000To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention.\u0000\u0000\u0000SEARCH METHODS\u0000We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023.\u0000\u0000\u0000SELECTION CRITERIA\u0000We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment).\u0000\u0000\u0000DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\u0000We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome.\u0000\u0000\u0000MAIN RESULTS\u0000We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority tria","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":"42 1","pages":"CD015112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140720182","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Corticosteroids for the prevention and treatment of bronchopulmonary dysplasia: an overview of systematic reviews.","authors":"M. van de Loo, A. V. van Kaam, Martin Offringa, L. Doyle, Chris Cooper, W. Onland","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD013271.pub2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013271.pub2","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\u0000Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) remains an important complication of prematurity. Pulmonary inflammation plays a central role in the pathogenesis of BPD, explaining the rationale for investigating postnatal corticosteroids. Multiple systematic reviews (SRs) have summarised the evidence from numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating different aspects of administrating postnatal corticosteroids. Besides beneficial effects on the outcome of death or BPD, potential short- and long-term harms have been reported.\u0000\u0000\u0000OBJECTIVES\u0000The primary objective of this overview was to summarise and appraise the evidence from SRs regarding the efficacy and safety of postnatal corticosteroids in preterm infants at risk of developing BPD.\u0000\u0000\u0000METHODS\u0000We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Epistemonikos for SRs in April 2023. We included all SRs assessing any form of postnatal corticosteroid administration in preterm populations with the objective of ameliorating pulmonary disease. All regimens and comparisons were included. Two review authors independently checked the eligibility of the SRs comparing corticosteroids with placebo, and corticosteroids with different routes of administration and regimens. The included outcomes, considered key drivers in the decision to administer postnatal corticosteroids, were the composite outcome of death or BPD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA), its individual components, long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae, sepsis, and gastrointestinal tract perforation. We independently assessed the methodological quality of the included SRs by using AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews) tools. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We provided a narrative description of the characteristics, methodological quality, and results of the included SRs.\u0000\u0000\u0000MAIN RESULTS\u0000We included nine SRs (seven Cochrane, two non-Cochrane) containing 87 RCTs, 1 follow-up study, and 9419 preterm infants, investigating the effects of postnatal corticosteroids to prevent or treat BPD. The quality of the included SRs according to AMSTAR 2 varied from high to critically low. Risk of bias according to ROBIS was low. The certainty of the evidence according to GRADE ranged from very low to moderate. Early initiated systemic dexamethasone (< seven days after birth) likely has a beneficial effect on death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.95; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16, 95% CI 10 to 41; I2 = 39%; 17 studies; 2791 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and on BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82; NNTB 13, 95% CI 9 to 21; I2 = 39%; 17 studies; 2791 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Early initiated systemic hydrocortisone may also have a beneficial effect on death or BPD at 36 weeks' PMA (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":"29 1","pages":"CD013271"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140717108","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Midwife continuity of care models versus other models of care for childbearing women","authors":"Jane Sandall, C. Fernandez Turienzo, D. Devane, Hora Soltani, Paddy Gillespie, Simon Gates, Leanne V Jones, Andrew H Shennan, Hannah Rayment-Jones","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub6","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife continuity of care models and other models of care. This is an update of a review published in 2016. Objectives To compare the effects of midwife continuity of care models with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 August 2022), as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife continuity of care models or other models of care during pregnancy and birth. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion criteria, scientific integrity, and risk of bias, and carried out data extraction and entry. Primary outcomes were spontaneous vaginal birth, caesarean section, regional anaesthesia, intact perineum, fetal loss after 24 weeks gestation, preterm birth, and neonatal death. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence. Main results We included 17 studies involving 18,533 randomised women. We assessed all studies as being at low risk of scientific integrity/trustworthiness concerns. Studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The majority of the included studies did not include women at high risk of complications. There are three ongoing studies targeting disadvantaged women. Primary outcomes Based on control group risks observed in the studies, midwife continuity of care models, as compared to other models of care, likely increase spontaneous vaginal birth from 66% to 70% (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.07; 15 studies, 17,864 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), likelyreduce caesarean sections from 16% to 15% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; 16 studies, 18,037 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), and likely result in little to no difference in intact perineum (29% in other care models and 31% in midwife continuity of care models, average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12; 12 studies, 14,268 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). There may belittle or no difference in preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (6% under both care models, average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; 10 studies, 13,850 participants; low‐certainty evidence). We arevery uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models on regional analgesia (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 15 studies, 17,754 participants, very low‐certainty evidence), fetal loss at or after 24 weeks gestation (average RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.13; 12 studies, 16,122 participants; very low‐certainty evidence), and neonatal death (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.71; 10 studies, 14,718 participan","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140717869","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) in children.","authors":"Darren Owens, Simon Watkinson, Jayne E Harrison, S. Turner, H. Worthington","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD003451.pub3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003451.pub3","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\u0000Prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion) may be due to jaw or tooth position or both. The upper jaw (maxilla) can be too far back or the lower jaw (mandible) too far forward; the upper front teeth (incisors) may be tipped back or the lower front teeth tipped forwards. Orthodontic treatment uses different types of braces (appliances) fitted inside or outside the mouth (or both) and fixed to the teeth. A facemask is the most commonly reported non-surgical intervention used to correct Class III malocclusion. The facemask rests on the forehead and chin, and is connected to the upper teeth via an expansion appliance (known as 'rapid maxillary expansion' (RME)). Using elastic bands placed by the wearer, a force is applied to the top teeth and jaw to pull them forwards and downward. Some orthodontic interventions involve a surgical component; these go through the gum into the bone (e.g. miniplates). In severe cases, or if orthodontic treatment is unsuccessful, people may need jaw (orthognathic) surgery as adults. This review updates one published in 2013.\u0000\u0000\u0000OBJECTIVES\u0000To assess the effects of orthodontic treatment for prominent lower front teeth in children and adolescents.\u0000\u0000\u0000SEARCH METHODS\u0000An information specialist searched four bibliographic databases and two trial registries up to 16 January 2023. Review authors screened reference lists.\u0000\u0000\u0000SELECTION CRITERIA\u0000We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving children and adolescents (16 years of age or under) randomised to receive orthodontic treatment to correct prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion), or no (or delayed) treatment.\u0000\u0000\u0000DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\u0000We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was overjet (i.e. prominence of the lower front teeth); our secondary outcomes included ANB (A point, nasion, B point) angle (which measures the relative position of the maxilla to the mandible).\u0000\u0000\u0000MAIN RESULTS\u0000We identified 29 RCTs that randomised 1169 children (1102 analysed). The children were five to 13 years old at the start of treatment. Most studies measured outcomes directly after treatment; only one study provided long-term follow-up. All studies were at high risk of bias as participant and personnel blinding was not possible. Non-surgical orthodontic treatment versus untreated control We found moderate-certainty evidence that non-surgical orthodontic treatments provided a substantial improvement in overjet (mean difference (MD) 5.03 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.81 to 6.25; 4 studies, 184 participants) and ANB (MD 3.05°, 95% CI 2.40 to 3.71; 8 studies, 345 participants), compared to an untreated control group, when measured immediately after treatment. There was high heterogeneity in the analyses, but the effects were consistently in favour of the orthodontic treatment groups rather than the untreated control groups (studies tested facemask (with or without RME), chin cup, orthodontic removable trac","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":"2 3","pages":"CD003451"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140720504","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Etidronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.","authors":"George A. Wells, Shu-Ching Hsieh, J. Peterson, Carine Zheng, Shannon E Kelly, B. Shea, P. Tugwell","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD003376.pub4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003376.pub4","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\u0000Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts - bone cells that break down bone tissue. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008. For clinical relevance, we investigated etidronate's effects on postmenopausal women stratified by fracture risk (low versus high).\u0000\u0000\u0000OBJECTIVES\u0000To assess the benefits and harms of intermittent/cyclic etidronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk of fracture, respectively.\u0000\u0000\u0000SEARCH METHODS\u0000We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trial registers, the websites of drug approval agencies, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews. We identified eligible trials published between 1966 and February 2023.\u0000\u0000\u0000SELECTION CRITERIA\u0000We included randomized controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of etidronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Women in the experimental arms must have received at least one year of etidronate, with or without other anti-osteoporotic drugs and concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Eligible comparators were placebo (i.e. no treatment; or calcium, vitamin D, or both) or another anti-osteoporotic drug. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (≤ -2.5), or aged 75 years or older. If none of these criteria were met, we considered the study to be primary prevention.\u0000\u0000\u0000DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\u0000We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The review has three main comparisons: (1) etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo; (2) etidronate 200 mg/day versus placebo; (3) etidronate at any dosage versus another anti-osteoporotic agent. We stratified the analyses for each comparison into primary and secondary prevention studies. For major outcomes in the placebo-controlled studies of etidronate 400 mg/day, we followed our original review by defining a greater than 15% relative change as clinically important. For all outcomes of interest, we extracted outcome measurements at the longest time point in the study.\u0000\u0000\u0000MAIN RESULTS\u0000Thirty studies met the review's eligibility criteria. Of these, 26 studies, with a total of 2770 women, reported data that we could extract and quantitatively synthesize. There were nine primary and 17 secondary prevention studies. We had concerns about at least one risk of bias domain in each study. None of the studies described appropriate me","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":"40 5","pages":"CD003376"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140723412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Inhaled bronchodilators for the prevention and treatment of chronic lung disease in preterm infants.","authors":"G. Ng, Matteo Bruschettini, John Ibrahim, Orlando da Silva","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD003214.pub4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003214.pub4","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\u0000Chronic lung disease (CLD) occurs frequently in preterm infants and is associated with respiratory morbidity. Bronchodilators have the potential effect of dilating small airways with muscle hypertrophy. Increased compliance and tidal volume, and decreased airway resistance, have been documented with the use of bronchodilators in infants with CLD. Therefore, bronchodilators are widely considered to have a role in the prevention and treatment of CLD, but there remains uncertainty as to whether they improve clinical outcomes. This is an update of the 2016 Cochrane review.\u0000\u0000\u0000OBJECTIVES\u0000To determine the effect of inhaled bronchodilators given as prophylaxis or as treatment for chronic lung disease (CLD) on mortality and other complications of preterm birth in infants at risk for or identified as having CLD.\u0000\u0000\u0000SEARCH METHODS\u0000An Information Specialist searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and three trials registers from 2016 to May 2023. In addition, the review authors undertook reference checking, citation searching and contact with trial authors to identify additional studies.\u0000\u0000\u0000SELECTION CRITERIA\u0000We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving preterm infants less than 32 weeks old that compared bronchodilators to no intervention or placebo. CLD was defined as oxygen dependency at 28 days of life or at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. Initiation of bronchodilator therapy for the prevention of CLD had to occur within two weeks of birth. Treatment of infants with CLD had to be initiated before discharge from the neonatal unit. The intervention had to include administration of a bronchodilator by nebulisation or metered dose inhaler. The comparator was no intervention or placebo.\u0000\u0000\u0000DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\u0000We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Critical outcomes included: mortality within the trial period; CLD (defined as oxygen dependency at 28 days of life or at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age); adverse effects of bronchodilators, including hypokalaemia (low potassium levels in the blood), tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmia, tremor, hypertension and hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar); and pneumothorax. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.\u0000\u0000\u0000MAIN RESULTS\u0000We included two randomised controlled trials in this review update. Only one trial provided useable outcome data. This trial was conducted in six neonatal intensive care units in France and Portugal, and involved 173 participants with a gestational age of less than 31 weeks. The infants in the intervention group received salbutamol for the prevention of CLD. The evidence suggests that salbutamol may result in little to no difference in mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 2.31; risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; low-certainty evidence) or CLD at 28 days (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.37; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.17; low-certainty evidence), when compa","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":"61 11","pages":"CD003214"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140727836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for people with kidney failure.","authors":"Melissa S Cheetham, Isabelle Ethier, R. Krishnasamy, Yeoungjee Cho, S. Palmer, David W. Johnson, Jonathan C. Craig, P. Stroumza, L. Frantzen, J. Hegbrant, G. Strippoli","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD009535.pub3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009535.pub3","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\u0000Home haemodialysis (HHD) may be associated with important clinical, social or economic benefits. However, few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated HHD versus in-centre HD (ICHD). The relative benefits and harms of these two HD modalities are uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2014. This update includes non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs).\u0000\u0000\u0000OBJECTIVES\u0000To evaluate the benefits and harms of HHD versus ICHD in adults with kidney failure.\u0000\u0000\u0000SEARCH METHODS\u0000We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 9 October 2022 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE (OVID) for NRSIs.\u0000\u0000\u0000SELECTION CRITERIA\u0000RCTs and NRSIs evaluating HHD (including community houses and self-care) compared to ICHD in adults with kidney failure were eligible. The outcomes of interest were cardiovascular death, all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, all-cause hospitalisation, vascular access interventions, central venous catheter insertion/exchange, vascular access infection, parathyroidectomy, wait-listing for a kidney transplant, receipt of a kidney transplant, quality of life (QoL), symptoms related to dialysis therapy, fatigue, recovery time, cost-effectiveness, blood pressure, and left ventricular mass.\u0000\u0000\u0000DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\u0000Two authors independently assessed if the studies were eligible and then extracted data. The risk of bias was assessed, and relevant outcomes were extracted. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis was performed on outcomes where there was sufficient data.\u0000\u0000\u0000MAIN RESULTS\u0000From the 1305 records identified, a single cross-over RCT and 39 NRSIs proved eligible for inclusion. These studies were of varying design (prospective cohort, retrospective cohort, cross-sectional) and involved a widely variable number of participants (small single-centre studies to international registry analyses). Studies also varied in the treatment prescription and delivery (e.g. treatment duration, frequency, dialysis machine parameters) and participant characteristics (e.g. time on dialysis). Studies often did not describe these parameters in detail. Although the risk of bias, as assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, was generally low for most studies, within the constraints of observati","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":"23 26","pages":"CD009535"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140732647","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Preoperative nutrition therapy in people undergoing gastrointestinal surgery.","authors":"A. Sowerbutts, Sorrel Burden, J. Sremanakova, C. French, Stephen R. Knight, Ewen M Harrison","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD008879.pub3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008879.pub3","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\u0000Poor preoperative nutritional status has been consistently linked to an increase in postoperative complications and worse surgical outcomes. We updated a review first published in 2012.\u0000\u0000\u0000OBJECTIVES\u0000To assess the effects of preoperative nutritional therapy compared to usual care in people undergoing gastrointestinal surgery.\u0000\u0000\u0000SEARCH METHODS\u0000We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trial registries on 28 March 2023. We searched reference lists of included studies.\u0000\u0000\u0000SELECTION CRITERIA\u0000We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people undergoing gastrointestinal surgery and receiving preoperative nutritional therapy, including parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition or oral nutrition supplements, compared to usual care. We only included nutritional therapy that contained macronutrients (protein, carbohydrate and fat) and micronutrients, and excluded studies that evaluated single nutrients. We included studies regardless of the nutritional status of participants, that is, well-nourished participants, participants at risk of malnutrition, or mixed populations. We excluded studies in people undergoing pancreatic and liver surgery. Our primary outcomes were non-infectious complications, infectious complications and length of hospital stay. Our secondary outcomes were nutritional aspects, quality of life, change in macronutrient intake, biochemical parameters, 30-day perioperative mortality and adverse effects.\u0000\u0000\u0000DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\u0000We used standard Cochrane methodology. We assessed risk of bias using the RoB 1 tool and applied the GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of evidence.\u0000\u0000\u0000MAIN RESULTS\u0000We included 16 RCTs reporting 19 comparisons (2164 participants). Seven studies were new for this update. Participants' ages ranged from 21 to 79 years, and 62% were men. Three RCTs used parenteral nutrition, two used enteral nutrition, eight used immune-enhancing nutrition and six used standard oral nutrition supplements. All studies included mixed groups of well-nourished and malnourished participants; they used different methods to identify malnutrition and reported this in different ways. Not all the included studies were conducted within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme, which is now current clinical practice in most hospitals undertaking GI surgery. We were concerned about risk of bias in all the studies and 14 studies were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. We are uncertain if parenteral nutrition has any effect on the number of participants who had a non-infectious complication (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.02; 3 RCTs, 260 participants; very low-certainty evidence); infectious complication (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.80; 3 RCTs, 260 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 5.49 days, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.96; 2 RCTs, 135 participants; very low-certa","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":"33 3","pages":"CD008879"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140729031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Physical exercise for people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"M. Ernst, A. Folkerts, R. Gollan, E. Lieker, J. Caro-Valenzuela, Anne Adams, Nora Cryns, I. Monsef, A. Dresen, M. Roheger, Carsten Eggers, N. Skoetz, Elke Kalbe","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD013856.pub3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013856.pub3","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\u0000Physical exercise is effective in managing Parkinson's disease (PD), but the relative benefit of different exercise types remains unclear.\u0000\u0000\u0000OBJECTIVES\u0000To compare the effects of different types of physical exercise in adults with PD on the severity of motor signs, quality of life (QoL), and the occurrence of adverse events, and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking using network meta-analyses (NMAs).\u0000\u0000\u0000SEARCH METHODS\u0000An experienced information specialist performed a systematic search for relevant articles in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and five other databases to 17 May 2021. We also searched trial registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists of identified studies up to this date.\u0000\u0000\u0000SELECTION CRITERIA\u0000We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one type of physical exercise for adults with PD to another type of exercise, a control group, or both.\u0000\u0000\u0000DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\u0000Two review authors independently extracted data. A third author was involved in case of disagreements. We categorized the interventions and analyzed their effects on the severity of motor signs, QoL, freezing of gait, and functional mobility and balance up to six weeks after the intervention using NMAs. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the risk of bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and rated the confidence in the evidence using the CINeMA approach for results on the severity of motor signs and QoL. We consulted a third review author to resolve any disagreements. Due to heterogeneous reporting of adverse events, we summarized safety data narratively and rated our confidence in the evidence using the GRADE approach.\u0000\u0000\u0000MAIN RESULTS\u0000We included 154 RCTs with a total of 7837 participants with mostly mild to moderate disease and no major cognitive impairment. The number of participants per study was small (mean 51, range from 10 to 474). The NMAs on the severity of motor signs and QoL included data from 60 (2721 participants), and 48 (3029 participants) trials, respectively. Eighty-five studies (5192 participants) provided safety data. Here, we present the main results. We observed evidence of beneficial effects for most types of physical exercise included in our review compared to a passive control group. The effects on the severity of motor signs and QoL are expressed as scores on the motor scale of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-M) and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire 39 (PDQ-39), respectively. For both scales, higher scores denote higher symptom burden. Therefore, negative estimates reflect improvement (minimum clinically important difference: -2.5 for UPDRS-M and -4.72 for PDQ-39). Severity of motor signs The evidence from the NMA (60 studies; 2721 participants) suggests that dance and gait/balance/functional training probably have a moderate beneficial effect on the severity of motor signs (dance: mean difference (MD) -10.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -14.87 to -5.36; gait/balanc","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":"25 27","pages":"CD013856"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140732509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}