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.

COVID-19-related medical research: a meta-research and critical appraisal.

Abstract: Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, a large number of COVID-19-related papers have been published. However, concerns about the risk of expedited science have been raised. We aimed at reviewing and categorizing COVID-19-related medical research and to critically appraise peer-reviewed original articles. The data sources were Pubmed, Cochrane COVID-19 register study, arXiv, medRxiv and bioRxiv, from 01/11/2019 to 01/05/2020. Peer-reviewed and preprints publications related to COVID-19 were included, written in English or Chinese. No limitations were placed on study design. Reviewers screened and categorized studies according to i) publication type, ii) country of publication, and iii) topics covered. Original articles were critically appraised using validated quality assessment tools. Among the 11,452 publications identified, 10,516 met the inclusion criteria, among which 7468 (71.0%) were peer-reviewed articles. Among these, 4190 publications (56.1%) did not include any data or analytics (comprising expert opinion pieces). Overall, the most represented topics were infectious disease (n = 2326, 22.1%), epidemiology (n = 1802, 17.1%), and global health (n = 1602, 15.2%). The top five publishing countries were China (25.8%), United States (22.3%), United Kingdom (8.8%), Italy (8.1%) and India (3.4%). The dynamic of publication showed that the exponential growth of COVID-19 peer-reviewed articles was mainly driven by publications without original data (mean 261.5 articles ± 51.1 per week) as compared with original articles (mean of 69.3 ± 22.3 articles per week). Original articles including patient data accounted for 713 (9.5%) of peer-reviewed studies. A total of 576 original articles (80.8%) showed intermediate to high risk of bias. Last, except for simulation studies that mainly used large-scale open data, the median number of patients enrolled was of 102 (IQR = 37–337). Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of research is composed by publications without original data. Peer-reviewed original articles with data showed a high risk of bias and included a limited number of patients. Together, these findings underscore the urgent need to strike a balance between the velocity and quality of research, and to cautiously consider medical information and clinical applicability in a pressing, pandemic context. https://osf.io/5zjyx/

Vitamin and mineral supplementation for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in mid and late life

Abstract: Vitamins and minerals play multiple functions within the central nervous system which may help to maintain brain health and optimal cognitive functioning. Supplementation of the diet with various vitamins and minerals has been suggested as a means of maintaining cognitive function, or even of preventing dementia, in later life.

‐Non‐pharmacological interventions for wandering of people with dementia in the domestic setting

Abstract: Background A number of studies exist of interventions for wandering in the institutional setting, but much less work has been done on wandering in the domestic setting. The prevalence of wandering by people with dementia is difficult to assess; wandering is not a simple or static behaviour and the reasons why people wander remain unclear. In the absence of a theory of wandering and an agreed definition of wandering, it is difficult to discover effective strategies for managing wandering and difficult to design appropriate intervention strategies. Also, the same behaviour or type of wandering might occur for different reasons in different individuals; any theoretical formulation is going to have to allow for different triggers for the behaviour and so to get a 'one size fits all' kind of explanation is unlikely. Thus what we mostly encounter in this field is a 'trial and error' approach which does not always do justice to the complex interactions of personal and environmental factors that lead people with dementia to wander. While there seems to be a consensus in the literature that in the majority of cases non-pharmacological approaches may work as well as drug treatment and with fewer side effects, in practice clinicians often resort to drugs as the first line of treatment. This review reports the lack of evidence from RCTs and discusses the range of non-pharmacological interventions that have been carried out using other study designs. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-pharmacological interventions in reducing wandering in the domestic setting by people with dementia. The secondary objective is to highlight the quality and quantity of research evidence available and to set an agenda for future research. Search methods The Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG), The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS were searched on 11 June 2009 using the terms:exit* OR wander* OR elopement OR ambulat* OR walk*. The CDCIG Specialized Register contains records from all major health care databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS) as well as from many trials databases and grey literature sources. Selection criteria Randomised clinical trials comparing intervention with no intervention or usual treatment ('standard care') or another intervention. Data collection and analysis No suitable trials of non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention and management of wandering in the domestic setting were found. Main results As no randomised controlled trials were found, no results can be reported. Authors' conclusions There is an urgent need for randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions for wandering in the domestic setting.

Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) 2021: Updated Pharmacological treatment of stable COPD

Abstract: The Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) were first published in 2012, and since then have undergone a series of updates incorporating new evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of COPD. GesEPOC was drawn up in partnership with scientific societies involved in the treatment of COPD and the Spanish Patients' Forum. Their recommendations are based on an evaluation of the evidence using GRADE methodology, and a narrative description of the evidence in areas in which GRADE cannot be applied. In this article, we summarize the recommendations on the pharmacological treatment of stable COPD based on 9 PICO questions. COPD treatment is a 4-step process: 1) diagnosis, 2) determination of the risk level, 3) initial and subsequent inhaled therapy, and 4) identification and management of treatable traits. For the selection of inhaled therapy, high-risk patients are divided into 3 phenotypes: non-exacerbator, eosinophilic exacerbator, and non-eosinophilic exacerbator. Some treatable traits are general and should be investigated in all patients, such as smoking or inhalation technique, while others affect severe patients in particular, such as chronic hypoxemia and chronic bronchial infection. COPD treatment is based on long-acting bronchodilators with single agents or in combination, depending on the patient's risk level. Eosinophilic exacerbators must receive inhaled corticosteroids, while non-eosinophilic exacerbators require a more detailed evaluation to choose the best therapeutic option. The new GesEPOC also includes recommendations on the withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids and on indications for alpha-1 antitrypsin treatment. GesEPOC offers a more individualized approach to COPD treatment tailored according to the clinical characteristics of patients and their level of complexity.

Interventions for improving the appropriate use of imaging in people with musculoskeletal conditions

Abstract: BACKGROUND Imaging is commonly performed for musculoskeletal conditions. Identifying interventions to improve the appropriate use of imaging for musculoskeletal conditions could potentially result in improved health outcomes for patients and reduced health care costs. OBJECTIVES To determine the effects of interventions that aim to improve the appropriate use of imaging for people with musculoskeletal conditions. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register (June 2007), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2007), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2007) and CINAHL (January 1982 to June 2007). We also searched reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We undertook citation searches of all included studies, contacted authors of included studies, and contacted other experts in the field of effective professional practice. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled clinical trials and interrupted time-series analyses that evaluated interventions designed to improve the use of imaging for musculoskeletal symptoms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS Twenty eight studies met our inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies were for the management of osteoporosis or low back pain, and most evaluated interventions aimed at health professionals. To improve the use of imaging in the management of osteoporosis, the effect of any type of intervention compared to no-intervention controls was modest (absolute improvement in bone mineral density test ordering +10%, IQR 0.0 to +27.7). Patient mediated, reminder, and organisational interventions appeared to have most potential for improving imaging use in osteoporosis. For low back pain studies, the most common intervention evaluated was distribution of educational materials and this showed varying effects. Other interventions in low back pain studies also showed variable effects. For other musculoskeletal conditions, distribution of educational materials, educational meetings and audit and feedback were not shown to be effective for changing imaging ordering behaviour. Across all conditions, increasing the number of intervention components did not increase effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS For improving the use of imaging in osteoporosis, most professional interventions demonstrated benefit, and patient mediated, reminder, and organisational interventions appeared to have most potential for benefit. For low back pain studies interventions showed varying effects. For other musculoskeletal conditions, no firm conclusions can be drawn.