Cochrane Collaboration

About: Cochrane Collaboration is a nonprofit organization based out in Oxford, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Systematic review & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 1995 authors who have published 3928 publications receiving 382695 citations.

Infliximab reduces hospitalizations and surgery interventions in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: Background We systematically reviewed infliximab benefit in reducing hospitalizations and/or major surgery rates in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Methods A literature search to May 2012 was performed to identify all studies (experimental and observational) evaluating patients with IBD treated with infliximab and providing data on hospitalizations and/or major surgery rates. Three reviewers independently performed studies' selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Analyses were carried according to study design (randomized clinical trials [RCTs] and observational studies) and IBD type (Crohn's disease [CD] and ulcerative colitis [UC]). Random-effects meta-analysis was used to derive pooled and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimates of odds ratios (OR). Heterogeneity was assessed with I test. Results Twenty-seven eligible studies were included (9 RCTs and 18 observational studies). Infliximab reduced hospitalization risk, both in pooled RCTs (OR, 0.51; 95% CI 0.40-0.65; I = 0%) and results of observational studies (OR, 0.29, 95% CI, 0.19-0.43; I = 87%), without differences between CD and UC. Infliximab reduced surgery risk in pooled RCTs results, both in CD (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.15-0.64; I = 0%) and UC (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37-0.88; I = 0%). Pooled estimate from observational studies favored infliximab for patients with CD (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21-0.49; I = 77%), but not for patients with UC. Conclusions The best evidence available points toward a reduction of the risk of hospitalization and major surgery requirement in patients with IBD treated with infliximab. This impact is clinically and economically relevant because hospitalization and surgery are considered to be markers of disease severity and significantly contribute to the total direct costs associated with IBD.

Timed intercourse versus intra-uterine insemination with or without ovarian hyperstimulation for subfertility in men.

Abstract: Background Although intra-uterine insemination (IUI) is widely used, however its effectiveness remains a matter of debate. Although IUI is less invasive and expensive than IVF or GIFT, it should only be applied if the probability of conception is improved significantly as compared to the natural chance of conceiving. To increase the number of available oocytes at the site of fertilization, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) can be applied in conjunction with IUI. Uncontrolled studies suggest a beneficial effect of COH in combination with IUI, also when a male factor is present. To be able to draw firm conclusions whether IUI and/or COH improve the probability of conception, several comparisons should be performed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objectives To determine for male subfertility whether intrauterine insemination (IUI) improves the probability of conception compared with timed intercourse and whether the addition of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation influences the results. Search strategy 1. The specialist database of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group. 2. Medline search. 3. Embase search. 4. DDFU search. 5. BIOSIS search. 6. SCIsearch. 7. Manual searching of references mentioned in the obtained studies. 8. Personal communication and write letters to experts (14) in the field. 9. Abstracts of The American Society for Reproductive Medicine and European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology Meetings. When important information is lacking from the original publications the authors will be contacted. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials only. Data collection and analysis Independently by the first 2 authors: 1. Trial design characteristics. 2. Baseline characteristics of participants. 3. Types of intervention. 4. Outcomes where pregnancy is the outcome of main interest. Number of multiple pregnancies and number of cycles with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) are secondary outcomes. Analysis of agreement between the two observers was determined for the following items: inclusion or exclusion of a trial, method of randomization, definition of male subfertility, design of the trial, number of pregnancies and completed cycles. Sensitivity analysis is performed. Main results Seventeen trials fulfilled the selection criteria for this review and were included. Four trials are pending. Crude agreement concerning inclusion or exclusion of trials occurred for 41 of 43 (95%) trials reviewed (kappa 0.90). The included trials comprised 3,662 completed cycles. In natural cycles intrauterine insemination (IUI) significantly improved the probability of conception compared with timed intercourse (TI) (combined odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals: 2.43, 1.54 - 3.83). In cycles with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) IUI significantly improved the probability of conception also compared with TI (combined odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals: 2.14, 1.30 - 3.51). Despite clinical heterogeneity, these results are based on strong evidence. Intrauterine insemination in cycles with COH improved the probability of conception compared with IUI in natural cycles but significance was not reached (combined odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals: 1.79, 0.98 - 3.25). Comparing IUI in COH-cycles with TI in natural cycles the first treatment modality significantly improved the probability of conception (combined odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals: 6.23, 2.35 - 16.52). Reviewer's conclusions Intra-uterine insemination offers couples with male subfertility benefit over timed intercourse, both in natural cycles and in cycles with COH. In the case of a severe semen defect (with more than 1 million motile sperm after semen preparation and no triple sperm defect) IUI in natural cycles should be the treatment of first choice. The value of COH need to be further investigated in RCTs. Mild ovarian hyperstimulation with gonadotrophins is advised in cases with less sever

Systemic and topical antibiotics for chronic rhinosinusitis

Abstract: Background This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Systemic and topical antibiotics are used with the aim of eliminating infection in the short term (and some to reduce inflammation in the long term), in order to normalise nasal mucus and improve symptoms. Objectives To assess the effects of systemic and topical antibiotics in people with chronic rhinosinusitis. Search methods The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL (2015, Issue 8); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 29 September 2015. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing systemic or topical antibiotic treatment to (a) placebo or (b) no treatment or (c) other pharmacological interventions. Data collection and analysis We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - gastrointestinal disturbance. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of suspected allergic reaction (rash or skin irritation) and anaphylaxis or other very serious reactions. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. Main results We included five RCTs (293 participants), all of which compared systemic antibiotics with placebo or another pharmacological intervention. The varying study characteristics made comparison difficult. Four studies recruited only adults and one only children. Three used macrolide, one tetracycline and one a cephalosporin-type antibiotic. Three recruited only patients with chronic rhinosinusitis without nasal polyps, one recruited patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps and one had a mixed population. Three followed up patients for 10 to 12 weeks after treatment had finished. Systemic antibiotics versus placebo Three studies compared antibiotics with placebo (176 participants). One study (64 participants, without polyps) reported disease-specific HRQL using the SNOT-20 (0 to 5, 0 = best quality of life). At the end of treatment (three months) the SNOT-20 score was lower in the group receiving macrolide antibiotics than the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -0.54 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.98 to -0.10), corresponding to a moderate effect size favouring antibiotics (moderate quality evidence). Three months after treatment, it is uncertain if there was a difference between groups. One study (33 participants, with polyps) provided information on gastrointestinal disturbances and suspected allergic reaction (rash or skin irritation) after a short course of tetracycline antibiotic compared with placebo. We are very uncertain if antibiotics were associated with an increase in gastrointestinal disturbances (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 8.50) or skin irritation (RR 6.67, 95% CI 0.34 to 128.86) (very low quality evidence). Systemic antibiotics plus saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids versus placebo plus saline irrigation and intranasal corticosteroids One study (60 participants, some with and some without polyps) compared a three-month course of macrolide antibiotic with placebo; all participants also used saline irrigation and 70% used intranasal corticosteroids. Disease-specific HRQL was reported using SNOT-22 (0 to 110, 0 = best quality of life). Data were difficult to interpret (highly skewed and baseline imbalances) and it is unclear if there was an important difference at any time point (low quality evidence). To assess patient-reported disease severity participants rated the effect of treatment on a five-point scale (-2 for "desperately worse" to 2 for "cured") at the end of treatment (three months). For improvement in symptoms there was no difference between the antibiotics and placebo groups; the RR was 1.50 (95% CI 0.81 to 2.79; very low quality evidence), although there were also slightly more people who felt worse after treatment in the antibiotics group. There was no demonstrable difference in the rate of gastrointestinal disturbances between the groups (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.10). General HRQL was measured using the SF-36. The authors stated that there was no difference between groups at the end of treatment (12 weeks) or two weeks later. Systemic antibiotics versus intranasal corticosteroids One study (43 participants, without polyps) compared a three-month course of macrolide antibiotic with intranasal corticosteroids. Patient-reported disease severity was assessed using a composite symptom score (0 to 40; 0 = no symptoms). It is very uncertain if there was a difference as patient-reported disease severity was similar between groups (MD -0.32, 95% CI -2.11 to 1.47; low quality evidence). Systemic antibiotics versus oral corticosteroids One study (28 participants, with polyps) compared a short course of tetracycline antibiotic (unclear duration, ˜20 days) with a 20-day course of oral corticosteroids. We were unable to extract data on any of the primary efficacy outcomes. It is uncertain if there was a difference ingastrointestinal disturbances (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.14) or skin irritation (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 19.62) as the results for these outcomes were similar between groups (very low quality evidence). Authors' conclusions We found very little evidence that systemic antibiotics are effective in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. We did find moderate quality evidence of a modest improvement in disease-specific quality of life in adults with chronic rhinosinusitis without polyps receiving three months of a macrolide antibiotic. The size of improvement was moderate (0.5 points on a five-point scale) and only seen at the end of the three-month treatment; by three months later no difference was found. Despite a general understanding that antibiotics can be associated with adverse effects, including gastrointestinal disturbances, the results in this review were very uncertain because the studies were small and few events were reported. No RCTs of topical antibiotics met the inclusion criteria. More research in this area, particularly evaluating longer-term outcomes and adverse effects, is required.

Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth

Abstract: Background Crowns for primary molars are preformed and come in a variety of sizes and materials to be placed over decayed or developmentally defective teeth. They can be made completely of stainless steel (know as 'preformed metal crowns' or PMCs), or to give better aesthetics, may be made of stainless steel with a white veneer cover or made wholly of a white ceramic material. In most cases, teeth are trimmed for the crowns to be fitted conventionally using a local anaesthetic. However, in the case of the Hall Technique, PMCs are pushed over the tooth with no local anaesthetic, carious tissue removal or tooth preparation. Crowns are recommended for restoring primary molar teeth that have had a pulp treatment, are very decayed or are badly broken down. However, few dental practitioners use them in clinical practice. This review updates the original review published in 2007. Objectives Primary objective To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of all types of preformed crowns for restoring primary teeth compared with conventional filling materials (such as amalgam, composite, glass ionomer, resin modified glass ionomer and compomers), other types of crowns or methods of crown placement, non-restorative caries treatment or no treatment. Secondary objective To explore whether the extent of decay has an effect on the clinical outcome of primary teeth restored with all types of preformed crowns compared with those restored with conventional filling materials. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 21 January 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE via Ovid (1946 to 21 January 2015) and EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 21 January 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials and Open Grey for grey literature (to 21 January 2015). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the databases. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effectiveness of crowns compared with fillings, other types of crowns, non-restorative approaches or no treatment in children with untreated tooth decay in one or more primary molar teeth. We would also have included trials comparing different methods of fitting crowns. For trials to be considered for this review, the success or failure of the interventions and other clinical outcomes had to be reported at least six months after intervention (with the exception of 'pain/discomfort during treatment and immediately postoperatively'). Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed the title and abstracts for each article from the search results. and independently assessed the full text for each potentially relevant study. At least two authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data using a piloted data extraction form. Main results We included five studies that evaluated three comparisons. Four studies compared crowns with fillings; two of them compared conventional PMCs with open sandwich restorations, and two compared PMCs fitted using the Hall Technique with fillings. One of these studies included a third arm, which allowed the comparison of PMCs (fitted using the Hall Technique) versus non-restorative caries treatment. In the two studies using crowns fitted using the conventional method, all teeth had undergone pulpotomy prior to the crown being placed. The final study compared two different types of crowns: PMCs versus aesthetic stainless steel crowns with white veneers. No RCT evidence was found that compared different methods of fitting preformed metal crowns (i.e. Hall Technique versus conventional technique). We considered outcomes reported at the dental appointment or within 24 hours of it, and in the short term (less than 12 months) or long term (12 months or more). Some of our outcomes of interest were not measured in the studies: time to restoration failure or retreatment, patient satisfaction and costs. Crowns versus fillings All studies in this comparison used PMCs. One study reported outcomes in the short term and found no reports of major failure or pain in either group. There was moderate quality evidence that the risk of major failure was lower in the crowns group in the long term (risk ratio (RR) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.56; 346 teeth in three studies, one conventional and two using Hall Technique). Similarly, there was moderate quality evidence that the risk of pain was lower in the long term for the crown group (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.67; 312 teeth in two studies). Discomfort associated with the procedure was lower for crowns fitted using the Hall Technique than for fillings (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.87; 381 teeth) (moderate quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a clinically important difference in the risk of gingival bleeding when using crowns rather than fillings, either in the short term (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.66; 226 teeth) or long term (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.06; 195 teeth, two studies using PMCs with conventional technique at 12 months) (low quality evidence). Crowns versus non-restorative caries treatment Only one study compared PMCs (fitted with the Hall Technique) with non-restorative caries treatment; the evidence quality was very low and we are therefore we are uncertain about the estimates. Metal crowns versus aesthetic crowns One split-mouth study (11 participants) compared PMCs versus aesthetic crowns (stainless steel with white veneers). It provided very low quality evidence so no conclusions could be drawn. Authors' conclusions Crowns placed on primary molar teeth with carious lesions, or following pulp treatment, are likely to reduce the risk of major failure or pain in the long term compared to fillings. Crowns fitted using the Hall Technique may reduce discomfort at the time of treatment compared to fillings. The amount and quality of evidence for crowns compared to non-restorative caries, and for metal compared with aesthetic crowns, is very low. There are no RCTs comparing crowns fitted conventionally versus using the Hall Technique.