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.

Fluoride gels for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents.

Abstract: Background Topically applied fluoride gels have been widely used as a caries-preventive intervention in dental surgeries and school-based programmes for over three decades. This updates the Cochrane review of fluoride gels for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents that was first published in 2002. Objectives The primary objective is to determine the effectiveness and safety of fluoride gels in preventing dental caries in the child and adolescent population. The secondary objectives are to examine whether the effect of fluoride gels is influenced by the following: initial level of caries severity; background exposure to fluoride in water (or salt), toothpastes, or reported fluoride sources other than the study option(s); mode of use (self applied under supervision or operator-applied), and whether there is a differential effect between the tray and toothbrush methods of application; frequency of use (times per year) or fluoride concentration (ppm F). Search methods We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 5 November 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 5 November 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 November 2014), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 5 November 2014), LILACS and BBO via the BIREME Virtual Health Library (1980 to 5 November 2014), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 5 November 2014) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1945 to 5 November 2014). We undertook a search for ongoing trials on ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 5 November 2014. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication in the search of the electronic databases. We also searched reference lists of articles and contacted selected authors and manufacturers. Selection criteria Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials where blind outcome assessment was stated or indicated, comparing topically applied fluoride gel with placebo or no treatment in children up to 16 years. The frequency of application had to be at least once a year, and study duration at least one year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces in both permanent and primary teeth (D(M)FS and d(e/m)fs). Data collection and analysis At least two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment. We contacted study authors for additional information where required. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction (PF), that is, the difference in mean caries increments between the treatment and control groups expressed as a percentage of the mean increment in the control group. We performed random-effects meta-analyses where we could pool data. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity in random-effects metaregression analyses. We collected adverse effects information from the included trials. Main results We included 28 trials (3 of which are new trials since the original review), involving 9140 children and adolescents. Most of these trials recruited participants from schools. Most of the studies (20) were at high risk of bias, with 8 at unclear risk of bias. Twenty-five trials (8479 participants) contributed data for meta-analysis on permanent tooth surfaces: the D(M)FS pooled prevented fraction (PF) estimate was 28% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 19% to 36%; P < 0.0001; with substantial heterogeneity (P < 0.0001; I2 = 82%); moderate quality evidence). Subgroup and metaregression analyses suggested no significant association between estimates of D(M)FS prevented fractions and the prespecified trial characteristics. However, the effect of fluoride gel varied according to the type of control group used, with D(M)FS PF on average being 17% (95% CI 3% to 31%; P = 0.018) higher in non-placebo-controlled trials (the reduction in caries was 38% (95% CI 24% to 52%; P < 0.0001, 2808 participants) for the 10 trials with no treatment as control group, and 21% (95% CI 15% to 28%; P < 0.0001, 5671 participants) for the 15 placebo-controlled trials. A funnel plot of the 25 trials in the D(M)FS PF meta-analysis indicated a relationship between prevented fraction and study precision, with an apparent lack of small studies with statistically significant large effects. The d(e/m)fs pooled prevented fraction estimate for the three trials (1254 participants) that contributed data for the meta-analysis on primary teeth surfaces was 20% (95% CI 1% to 38%; P = 0.04; with no heterogeneity (P = 0.54; I2 = 0%); low quality evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse events. Only two trials reported information on acute toxicity signs and symptoms during the application of the gel (risk difference 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.02; P = 0.36; with no heterogeneity (P = 36; I2 = 0%); 490 participants; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported information on tooth staining, mucosal irritation or allergic reaction. Authors' conclusions The conclusions of this updated review remain the same as those when it was first published. There is moderate quality evidence of a large caries-inhibiting effect of fluoride gel in the permanent dentition. Information concerning the caries-preventive effect of fluoride gel on the primary dentition, which also shows a large effect, is based on low quality evidence from only three placebo-controlled trials. There is little information on adverse effects or on acceptability of treatment. Future trials should include assessment of potential adverse effects.

House dust mite control measures for asthma.

Abstract: Background The major allergen in house dust comes from mites. Chemical, physical and combined methods of reducing mite allergen levels are intended to reduce asthma symptoms in people who are sensitive to house dust mites. Objectives The objective of this review is to assess the effects of reducing exposure to house dust mite antigens in the homes of mite-sensitive asthmatics, assessing chemical and physical methods separately and together. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register, checked reference lists of articles and hand-searched Respiration (1980 to 1996) and Clinical and Experimental Allergy (1980 to 1996). The Cochrane Library is searched every three months. Selection criteria Randomised trials of mite control measures vs placebo or no treatment in asthmatic people known to be sensitive to house dust mites. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers applied the trial inclusion criteria, assessed their quality and extracted the data independently. Study authors were contacted to clarify information. Main results Twenty-nine trials (939 patients in the analyses) were included, with two trials awaiting assessment. Nine trials assessed chemical methods alone, 15 physical methods alone, and 5 a combination of chemical and physical methods. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference improvement of asthma (relative risk 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.31), asthma symptom scores (standardised mean difference -0.07, 95% confidence interval -0.35 to 0.22), medication usage (standardised mean difference -0.14, 95% confidence interval -0.43 to 0.15), or peak flow in the morning (standardised mean difference 0.04, 95% confidence interval -0.13 to 0.21). For chemical methods used alone, there was a statistically significantly adverse effect on symptoms (P = 0.03), whereas for physical methods used alone as evaluated in parallel group trials, there was a statistically significant beneficial effect (P = 0.02). However, because of the large number of significance tests we performed, two significant results would be expected to occur by chance. Reviewers' conclusions Currently available evidence from controlled trials of chemical and physical approaches to reducing exposure to house dust mite antigens in the homes of mite-sensitive asthmatics does not provide a secure basis for advice and policy. Further trials one of them very large - are currently in progress. The additional evidence from these studies will help to clarify whether or not the substantial efforts required to implement strategies intended to reduce mites can be expected to yield beneficial effects of a magnitude that people with mite sensitive asthma consider worthwhile.

Why add anything to nothing? The arcsine difference as a measure of treatment effect in meta-analysis with zero cells.

Abstract: For clinical trials with binary endpoints there are a variety of effect measures, for example risk difference, risk ratio and odds ratio (OR). The choice of metric is not always straightforward and should reflect the clinical question. Additional issues arise if the event of interest is rare. In systematic reviews, trials with zero events in both arms are encountered and often excluded from the meta-analysis.The arcsine difference (AS) is a measure which is rarely considered in the medical literature. It appears to have considerable promise, because it handles zeros naturally, and its asymptotic variance does not depend on the event probability.This paper investigates the pros and cons of using the AS as a measure of intervention effect. We give a pictorial representation of its meaning and explore its properties in relation to other measures. Based on analytical calculation of the variance of the arcsine transformation, a more conservative variance estimate for the rare event setting is proposed. Motivated by a published meta-analysis in cardiac surgery, we examine the statistical properties of the various metrics in the rare event setting.We find the variance estimate of the AS to be more stable than that of the log-OR, even if events are rare. However, parameter estimation is biased if the groups are markedly unbalanced. Though, from a theoretical viewpoint, the AS is a natural choice, its practical use is likely to continue to be limited by its less direct interpretation.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

Abstract: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.