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.

Travoprost compared with other prostaglandin analogues or timolol in patients with open‐angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension: meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract: Background: It is still uncertain whether travoprost has comparable or better efficacy compared with other prostaglandin analogues or timolol in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The authors performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the incidence of reported side-effects and intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effect of travoprost versus other prostaglandin analogues (latanaprost, bimatoprost, unoprostone) or timolol. Methods: Systematic literature retrieval was conducted in Pubmed, EMBASE, Chinese Bio-medicine Database and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify the potentially relevant randomized controlled trials. The statistical analysis was performed by RevMan 4.1 software that was provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. The outcome measures were the incidence of reported side-effects (hyperaemia, iris pigmentation, eyelash changes) and mean IOP pooled over treatment visits. Results: In total, 12 articles involving 3048 patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension were included in this meta-analysis. The combined results showed that travoprost 0.004% was more effective than timolol or travoprost 0.0015% in lowering IOP, but not more effective than bimatoprost or latanoprost. Travoprost 0.004% caused a higher percentage of hyperaemia than timolol, latanoprost, or travoprost 0.0015%. There was an increased incidence of pigmentation with travoprost than timolol. Travoprost 0.004% caused a higher percentage of eyelash changes than timolol, latanoprost, or travoprost 0.0015%. Conclusion: According to data available, travoprost is more effective than timolol in lowering IOP in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Compared with other prostaglandin analogues, travoprost appears to be equivalent to bimatoprost and latanoprost. Although a limited number of local side-effects were reported, no serious treatment-related side-effects were reported.

Should journals publish systematic reviews that find no evidence to guide practice? Examples from injury research.

Abstract: Many systematic reviews are inconclusive and reinforce the message that there is clinical uncertainty. Phil Alderson and Ian Roberts argue that journals should make a point of publishing such reviews rather than waiting for reviews that show marked benefit or harm. Some experts disagree, however, but we failed to persuade them to commit their views to print. Studies with dramatic findings make interesting reading. Journal editors understandably want to publish articles that their readers will enjoy. This is one cause of publication bias, where research with less dramatic results tends to be published in journals with a smaller circulation, if indeed it is published at all. Systematic reviews are no less vulnerable to this bias than other types of research. Should journals resist this pressure and make a point of publishing systematic reviews even if all they show is continuing clinical uncertainty? The answer will depend on the importance we attach to demonstrating uncertainty in medical practice. #### Summary points Denying uncertainty does not benefit patients and may increase health service costs More large scale randomised trials need to be conducted based on the “uncertainty principle” Systematic reviews with more dramatic results tend …

Antibiotics for acute laryngitis in adults

Abstract: Background This is an update of the original review published in 2005. Acute laryngitis is a common illness worldwide. Diagnosis is often made by case history alone and treatment often targets symptoms. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of different antibiotic therapies in adults with acute laryngitis. A secondary objective was to report the rates of adverse events associated with these treatments. Search methods We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (January 1966 to November week 3, 2014), EMBASE (1974 to December 2014), LILACS (1982 to December 2014) and BIOSIS (1980 to December 2014). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antibiotic therapy with placebo for acute laryngitis. The main outcome was objective voice scores. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted and synthesised data. Main results We included three RCTs (351 participants) that had moderate to high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. We downgraded the studies because of limitations in study design or execution (risk of bias), imprecision and inconsistency of results. We included a new trial presented only as a conference abstract in this update. In one study of acute laryngitis in adults, 100 participants were randomised to receive penicillin V (800 mg twice daily for five days) or an identical placebo. A recording of each patient reading a standardised text was made at the first visit, during re-examination after one and two weeks, and at follow-up after two to six months. No significant differences were found between the groups. The trial also measured symptoms reported by participants and found no significant differences. One study investigated erythromycin for acute laryngitis in 106 adults. The mean objective voice scores measured at the first visit, at re-examination after one and two weeks, and at follow-up after two to six months did not significantly differ between the groups. At one week there were significant beneficial differences in the severity of reported vocal symptoms (slight, moderate and severe) as judged by participants (P value = 0.042). However, the rates of participants having improved voice disturbance (subjective symptoms) at one and two weeks were not significantly different among groups. Comparing erythromycin and placebo groups on the rate of persistence of cough at two weeks, the risk ratio (RR) was 0.38 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.97, P value = 0.04) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 5.87 (95% CI 3.09 to 65.55). We calculated a RR of 0.64 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.90, P value = 0.034) and a NNTB of 3.76 (95% CI 2.27 to 13.52; P value = 0.01) for the subjective voice scores at one week. A third trial from Russia included 145 patients with acute laryngitis symptoms. Participants were randomised to three treatment groups: Group 1: seven-day course of fusafungine (six times a day by inhalation); Group 2: seven-day course of fusafungine (six times a day by inhalation) plus clarithromycin (250 mg twice daily for seven days); Group 3: no treatment. Clinical cure rates were measured at days 5 ± 1, 8 ± 1 and 28 ± 2. The authors reported significant differences in the rates of clinical cure at day 5 ± 1 favouring fusafungine (one trial; 93 participants; RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.20; P value = 0.04) and fusafungine plus clarithromycin (one trial 97 participants; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.16; P value = 0.05) when compared to no treatment. However, no significant differences were found at days 8 ± 1 and 28 ± 2. Also, no significant differences were found when comparing fusafungine to fusafungine plus clarithromycin at days 5 ± 1, 8 ± 1 and 28 ± 2. Authors' conclusions Antibiotics do not appear to be effective in treating acute laryngitis when assessing objective outcomes. They appear to be beneficial for some subjective outcomes. Erythromycin could reduce voice disturbance at one week and cough at two weeks when measured subjectively. Fusafungine could increase the cure rate at day five. The included RCTs had important methodological problems and these modest benefits from antibiotics may not outweigh their cost, adverse effects or negative consequences for antibiotic resistance patterns.

Effective and evidence-based management strategies for rosacea: summary of a Cochrane systematic review.

Abstract: Rosacea is a common chronic skin disease affecting the face. There are numerous treatment options, but it is unclear which are the most effective. The aim of this review was to assess the evidence for the efficacy and safety of treatments for rosacea. Searches included the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Ongoing Trials Registers (updated February 2011). Randomized controlled trials in people with moderate to severe rosacea were included. Fifty-eight trials, including 27 from the original review, comprising 6633 participants were included in this updated review. Interventions included topical metronidazole, oral antibiotics, topical azelaic cream or gel, topical benzoyl peroxide and ⁄or combined with topical antibiotics, sulphacetamide ⁄sulphur, and others. There was some evidence that topical metronidazole and azelaic acid were more effective than placebo. Two trials indicated that doxycycline 40 mg was more effective than placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in effectiveness between doxycycline 40 mg and 100 mg but there were fewer adverse effects. One study reported that ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion was significantly more effective than artificial tears for treating ocular rosacea. Although the majority of included studies were assessed as being at high or unclear risk of bias, there was some evidence to support the effectiveness of topical metronidazole, azelaic acid and doxycycline (40 mg) in the treatment of moderate to severe rosacea, and ciclosporin 0AE05% ophthalmic emulsion for ocular rosacea. Further well-designed, adequately powered randomized controlled trials are required.

Anti-adhesion barrier gels following operative hysteroscopy for treating female infertility: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: The aim of this study was to assess the effects of any anti-adhesion barrier gel used after operative hysteroscopy for treating infertility associated with uterine cavity abnormalities. Gynecologists might use any barrier gel following operative hysteroscopy in infertile women for decreasing de novo adhesion formation; the use of any barrier gel is associated with less severe de novo adhesions and lower mean adhesion scores. Nevertheless, infertile women should be counseled that there is at the present no evidence for higher live birth or pregnancy rates. There is a lack of data for the outcome miscarriage. Preclinical studies suggest that the use of biodegradable surgical barriers may decrease postsurgical adhesion formation. Observational studies in the human report conflicting results. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Specialized Register (10 April 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to 4 April 2013), EMBASE (1974 to 4 April 2013), and other electronic databases of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, and reference lists. We handsearched the Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (from 1 January 1992 to 13 April 2013); we also contacted experts in the field. We included the randomized comparisons between any anti-adhesion barrier gel versus another barrier gel, placebo, or no adjunctive therapy following operative hysteroscopy. Primary outcomes were live birth rates and de novo adhesion formation at second-look hysteroscopy. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage rates, mean adhesion scores, and severity of adhesions at second-look hysteroscopy. Two authors independently assessed eligible studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted primary study authors for additional information or other clarification. Five trials met the inclusion criteria. There is no evidence for an effect favoring the use of any barrier gel following operative hysteroscopy for the key outcomes of live birth or clinical pregnancy (risk ratio (RR) 3.0, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 26, P = 0.32, one study, 30 women, very low quality evidence); there were no data on the outcome miscarriage. The use of any gel following operative hysteroscopy decreases the incidence of de novo adhesions at second-look hysteroscopy at 1 to 3 months (RR 0.65, 95 % CI 0.45 to 0.93, P = 0.02, five studies, 372 women, very low quality evidence). The number needed to treat to benefit is 9 (95 % CI 5 to 33). The use of auto-cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel in women undergoing operative hysteroscopy for fibroids, endometrial polyps, or uterine septa is associated with a lower mean adhesion score at second-look hysteroscopy at 3 months (mean difference (MD) −1.44, 95 % CI −1.83 to −1.05, P < 0.00001, one study, 24 women; this benefit is even larger in women undergoing operative hysteroscopy for intrauterine adhesions(MD −3.30, 95 % CI −3.43 to −3.17, P < 0.00001, one study, 19 women). After using any gel following operative hysteroscopy, there are more American Fertility Society 1988 stage I (mild) adhesions (RR 2.81, 95 % CI 1.13 to 7.01, P = 0.03, four studies, 79 women). The number needed to treat to benefit is 2 (95 % CI 1 to 4). Similarly there are less’ moderate or severe adhesions’ at second-look hysteroscopy (RR 0.25, 95 % CI 0.10 to 0.67, P = 0.006, four studies, 79 women). The number needed to treat to benefit is 2 (95 % CI 1 to 4) (all very low quality evidence). There are some concerns for the non-methodological quality. Only two trials included infertile women; in the remaining three studies, it is not clear whether and how many participants suffered from infertility. Therefore, the applicability of the findings of the included studies to the target population under study should be questioned. Moreover, only one small trial studied the effects of anti-adhesion barrier gels for the key outcome of pregnancy; the length of follow-up was, however, not specified. More well-designed and adequately powered randomized studies are needed to assess whether the use of any anti-adhesion gel affects the key reproductive outcomes in a target population of infertile women.