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.

Impact of air pollution on fertility: a systematic review.

Abstract: Air pollution has gained considerable interest because of the multiple adverse effects reported on human health, although its impact on fertility remains unclear. A systematic search was performed to evaluate the impact of air pollutants on fertility. Controlled trials and observational studies assessing animal model and epidemiological model were included. Occupational exposure and semen quality studies were not considered. Outcomes of interest included live birth, miscarriage, clinical pregnancy, implantation, and embryo quality. Ten studies were included and divided into two groups: animal studies and human epidemiological studies including the general population as well as women undergoing in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF/ET). Results from this systematic review suggest a significant impact of air pollution on miscarriage and clinical pregnancy rates in the general population, whereas among subfertile patients certain air pollutants seem to exert a greater impact on fertility outcomes, including miscarriage and live birth rates. Besides, studies in mammals observed a clear detrimental effect on fertility outcomes associated to air pollutants at high concentration. The lack of prospective studies evaluating the effect of air pollution exposure in terms of live birth constitutes an important limitation in this review. Thus, further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Emollients and moisturizers for eczema: abridged Cochrane systematic review including GRADE assessments

Abstract: Eczema is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder with considerable impact on quality of life. Emollients or moisturizers are widely recommended, but are these effective and safe? We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Skin Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the GREAT database and five trial registers to December 2015. We included 77 RCTs with 6603 participants. Seven studies (9%) were at low risk of bias, 34 (44%) had unclear risk and 36 (47%) were at high risk. The quality of the evidence was mainly low or moderate for the prespecified outcomes. The most important comparison, 'moisturizer vs. no moisturizer', showed improved Scoring Atopic Dermatitis values in the moisturizer group compared with no moisturizer [mean difference -2·42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4·55 to -0·28], but did not meet the minimal important difference of 8·7. Fewer flares were seen (risk ratio 0·40, 95% CI 0·23-0·70) and the rate of flares was reduced (hazard ratio 3·74, 95% CI 1·86-7·50). The groups applying moisturizer used less topical corticosteroids over 6-8 weeks (mean difference -9·30 g, 95% CI 15·3 to -3·27). Glycyrrhetinic acid-, urea- and glycerol-containing creams worked better than their controls (vehicle, placebo or no moisturizer) according to both participants and physicians. More flares were reported with moisturizer alone than when combined with twice-weekly fluticasone propionate (risk ratio 2·17, 95% CI 1·55-3·11). Adding moisturizers to topical anti-inflammatory treatment was more effective than anti-inflammatory treatment alone and resulted in fewer flares.

Paracetamol versus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for rheumatoid arthritis.

Abstract: Background Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are usually preferred for simple analgesics such as paracetamol for rheumatoid arthritis. It is not clear, however, whether the trade-offs between benefits and harms of NSAIDs are preferable to those of paracetamol (paracetamol is also called acetaminophen). Objectives To compare the benefits and harms of paracetamol with NSAIDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Search methods PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched up until August 2007. Reference lists of identified articles were also searched. Selection criteria Randomised double-blind studies comparing paracetamol with an NSAID. Data collection and analysis Decisions on inclusion of trials and data extraction were performed by the two authors independently. Main results Four cross-over studies, published between 1968 and 1982, involving 121 patients, and four different NSAIDs were included. The generation of the allocation sequence and the use of methods to conceal the allocation were not described in any of the studies. The studies were double-blind but it was not clear whether the blinding was effective. Methods for collecting adverse effects were not described. The NSAIDs were preferred more often than paracetamol by the patients or the investigator. In the largest trial, 20 out of 54 patients (37%) preferred ibuprofen and 7 out of 54 (13%) paracetamol. Investigators preference (as established by joint tenderness, grip strength and joint circumference) was 17 out of 35 for diclofenac versus 5 out of 35 for paracetamol in another trial. However, because of the weaknesses in the trials, no firm conclusion can be drawn. Authors' conclusions When considering the trade off between the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol/acetaminophen, it is not known whether one is better than the other for rheumatoid arthritis. But people with rheumatoid arthritis and the researchers in the study did prefer non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs more than acetaminophen/paracetamol. There is a need for a large trial, with appropriate randomisation, double-blinding, test of the success of the blinding, and with explicit methods to measure and analyse pain and adverse effects.

Sistema GRADE: metodología para la realización de recomendaciones para la práctica clínica

Abstract: Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) provide recommendations on the benefits and harms of different healthcare interventions. Proper CPG development and implementation can potentially reduce variability in clinical practice while improving its quality and safety. The GRADE system is used to assess the quality of evidence and to grade the strength of recommendations in the context of the development of CPGs, systematic reviews or health technology assessments. The aim of this article is to describe the main characteristics of the GRADE system through relevant examples in the context of primary care.