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.

Enabling appropriate personnel skill-mix for progressive realization of equitable access to assistive technology.

Abstract: Background and Methods: This paper reviews the current capacity of personnel in enabling access to assistive technology (AT) as well as the systems and processes within which they work, and was reviewed, discussed, and refined during and following the Global Research, Innovation, and Education in Assistive Technology (GREAT) Summit.Findings: Key concepts addressed include a person-centred team approach; sustainability indicators to monitor, measure, and respond to needs for service design and delivery; education, research, and training for competent practice, using the six rehab-workforce challenges framework; and credentialing frameworks. We propose development of a competence framework and associated education and training programs, and development and implementation of a certification framework for AT personnel.Conclusions: There is a resolve to address the challenges faced by People globally to access assistive technology. Context specific needs assessment is required to understand the AT Pers...

Educational interventions for the prevention of eye injuries

Abstract: Ocular injury is a preventable cause of blindness, yet it remains a significant disabling health problem that affects all age groups. Injuries may occur in the home, in the workplace, during recreational activities or as a result of road crashes. Types of injuries vary from closed globe (contusion or lamellar laceration) to an open globe injury, which includes penetration and even perforation of the globe. To date, the main strategy to prevent these injuries has been to educate people to identify high-risk situations and to take correct action to avoid danger.

Hysterectomy versus hysterectomy plus oophorectomy for premenopausal women

Abstract: Background Prophylactic oophorectomy alongside hysterectomy in premenopausal women is a common procedure. The decision to remove or conserve the ovaries is often based on the perceived risk for ovarian cancer and the need for additional gynaecological surgical interventions,and is weighed against the perceived risk of negative health effects caused by surgically induced menopause. The evidence needed to recommend either prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy or conservation of ovaries at the time of hysterectomy in premenopausal women is limited. This is an update of the original version of this systematic review published in 2008.Objectives To compare hysterectomy alone versus hysterectomy plus bilateral oophorectomy in women with benign gynaecological conditions,with respect to rates of mortality or subsequent gynaecological surgical interventions.Search methods We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (December 2005 to January 2014) and the following electronic databases: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE (January 1966 to January 2014),EMBASE (January 1985 to January 2014), and PsycINFO (1806 to January 2014).Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hysterectomy alone versus hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy in premenopausal women with benign gynaecological conditions were eligible. Any surgical approach could be used.Data collection and analysis Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion. Study authors were contacted if information was unclear.Main results Only one RCT comparing the benefits and risks of hysterectomy with or without oophorectomy was identified. The results of this pilot RCT have not been published and we have not been able to obtain the results. Therefore, no data could be included in this review. Authors' conclusions The conclusions of this review are limited by a lack of RCTs. Although no evidence is available from RCTs, there is growing evidence from observational studies that surgical menopause may impact negatively on cardiovascular health and all cause mortality.

Interventions for pityriasis rosea

Abstract: Background Pityriasis rosea is a scaly, itchy rash that mainly affects young adults and lasts for 2 to 12 weeks. The effects of many available treatments are uncertain. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007. Objectives To assess the effects of interventions for the management of pityriasis rosea in any individual diagnosed by a medical practitioner. Search methods We updated our searches of the following databases to October 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We searched five trials registers. We also checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies, contacted trial authors, scanned the abstracts from major dermatology conference proceedings, and searched the CAB Abstracts database. We searched PubMed for adverse effects to November 2018. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of interventions in pityriasis rosea. Treatment could be given in a single therapy or in combination. Eligible comparators were no treatment, placebo, vehicle only, another active compound, or placebo radiation treatment. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane. Our key outcomes were good or excellent rash improvement within two weeks, rated separately by the participant and medical practitioner; serious adverse events; resolution of itch within two weeks (participant-rated); reduction in itch score within two weeks (participant-rated); and minor participant-reported adverse events not requiring withdrawal of the treatment. Main results We included 14 trials (761 participants). In general, risk of selection bias was unclear or low, but risk of performance bias and reporting bias was high for 21% of the studies. Participant age ranged from 2 to 60 years, and sex ratio was similar. Disease severity was measured by various severity indices, which the included studies did not categorise. Six studies were conducted in India, three in Iran, two in the Philippines, and one each in Pakistan, the USA, and China. The included studies were conducted in dermatology departments and a paediatric clinic. Study duration ranged from 5 to 26 months. Three studies were funded by drug manufacturers; most studies did not report their funding source. The included studies assessed macrolide antibiotics, an antiviral agent, phototherapy, steroids and antihistamine, and Chinese medicine. None of the studies measured participant-rated good or excellent rash improvement. All reported outcomes were assessed within two weeks of treatment, except for adverse effects, which were measured throughout treatment. There is probably no difference between oral clarithromycin and placebo in itch resolution (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.52; 1 study, 28 participants) or rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.44; 1 study, 60 participants). For this comparison, there were no serious adverse events (1 study, 60 participants); minor adverse events and reduction in itch score were not measured; and all evidence was of moderate quality. When compared with placebo, erythromycin may lead to increased rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 4.02, 95% CI 0.28 to 56.61; 2 studies, 86 participants, low-quality evidence); however, the 95% CI indicates that the result may also be compatible with a benefit of placebo, and there may be little or no difference between treatments. Itch resolution was not measured, but one study measured reduction in itch score, which is probably larger with erythromycin (MD 3.95, 95% CI 3.37 to 4.53; 34 participants, moderate-quality evidence). In the same single, small trial, none of the participants had a serious adverse event, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, which included gastrointestinal upset (RR 2.00, CI 0.20 to 20.04; moderate-quality evidence). Two trials compared oral azithromycin to placebo or vitamins. There is probably no difference between groups in itch resolution (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.48) or reduction in itch score (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.43) (both outcomes based on one study; 70 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence from two studies indicates there may be no difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.00; 119 participants). In these same two studies, no serious adverse events were reported, and there was no clear difference between groups in minor adverse events, specifically mild abdominal pain (RR 5.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 47.10; moderate-quality evidence). Acyclovir was compared to placebo, vitamins, or no treatment in three trials (all moderate-quality evidence). Based on one trial (21 participants), itch resolution is probably higher with placebo than with acyclovir (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.94); reduction in itch score was not measured. However, there is probably a significant difference between groups in rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) in favour of acyclovir versus all comparators (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.53; 3 studies, 141 participants). Based on the same three studies, there were no serious adverse events in either group, and there was probably no difference between groups in minor adverse events (only one participant in the placebo group experienced abdominal pain and diarrhoea). One trial compared acyclovir added to standard care (calamine lotion and oral cetirizine) versus standard care alone (24 participants). The addition of acyclovir may lead to increased itch resolution (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.22 to 16.62) and reduction in itch score (MD 1.26, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.78) compared to standard care alone. Rash improvement (medical practitioner-rated) was not measured. The trial reported no serious adverse events in either group, and there may be no difference between groups in minor adverse events, such as headache (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 122.44) (all results based on low-quality evidence). Authors' conclusions When compared with placebo or no treatment, oral acyclovir probably leads to increased good or excellent, medical practitioner-rated rash improvement. However, evidence for the effect of acyclovir on itch was inconclusive. We found low- to moderate-quality evidence that erythromycin probably reduces itch more than placebo. Small study sizes, heterogeneity, and bias in blinding and selective reporting limited our conclusions. Further research is needed to investigate different dose regimens of acyclovir and the effect of antivirals on pityriasis rosea.

Methods and system for multi-path mitigation in tracking objects using reduced attenuation rf technology

Abstract: A method and system for a long range Radio Frequency (RF)-based identification, tracking and locating of objects. The method and system use a narrow bandwidth ranging signal(s), including VHF of lower frequency bands, which minimizes propagation loss and loss of accuracy of the RF locating signals. The method and system includes narrow bandwidth ranging signal multi-path mitigations processor, which further improves the track-locate accuracy. The signal is sent from a Master Unit(s) to a Tag. The signal traveling time is recorded and the distance between the Master(s) and the Tag is calculated. The method and system allow achieving a longer distance of the RF narrow bandwidth ranging signal penetration and an increased accuracy by using VHF bands in conjunction with the narrow bandwidth ranging signal multi-path mitigations processor. The techniques of Digital Signal Processing and Software-Defined Radio are used. The actual waveforms transmitted and received by the radios are defined by the software. The roles of the Master Unit(s) and the Tag can be reversed.