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.

Review: Effectiveness of mindfulness in improving mental health symptoms of children and adolescents: A meta‐analysis.

Abstract: Background Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) are increasingly used in the management of various mental health disorders in children and adolescents. However, there is limited evidence about the efficacy of various interventions used. Method A systematic review was performed to examine the effects of different MBIs on mental health symptoms and quality of life in both clinical and nonclinical samples of children and adolescents using data from only randomized control trials. The studies were also assessed for quality. Based on the type of MBI, study population, and control arm we had three comparisons for meta-analyses. Results Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative analysis but only 11 trials with comparable interventions and controls were included for meta-analyses. Mindfulness-based stress reduction/mindfulness-based cognitive therapy arm was more effective than nonactive control in the nonclinical populations. Acceptance commitment therapy was comparable to active treatments in patients in the clinical range. Other MBIs were also effective improving anxiety and stress but not depression in nonclinical populations compared to nonactive control. Conclusions Mindfulness-based interventions can be effective in children and adolescents with mental health symptoms. As there were significant limitations these results must be interpreted with caution.

Developing and evaluating communication strategies to support informed decisions and practice based on evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results

Abstract: Background: Healthcare decision makers face challenges when using guidelines, including understanding the quality of the evidence or the values and preferences upon which recommendations are made, which are often not clear. Methods: GRADE is a systematic approach towards assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in healthcare. GRADE also gives advice on how to go from evidence to decisions. It has been developed to address the weaknesses of other grading systems and is now widely used internationally. The Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE) consortium (http://www.decide-collaboration.eu/), which includes members of the GRADE Working Group and other partners, will explore methods to ensure effective communication of evidence-based recommendations targeted at key stakeholders: healthcare professionals, policymakers, and managers, as well as patients and the general public. Surveys and interviews with guideline producers and other stakeholders will explore how presentation of the evidence could be improved to better meet their information needs. We will collect further stakeholder input from advisory groups, via consultations and user testing; this will be done across a wide range of healthcare systems in Europe, North America, and other countries. Targeted communication strategies will be developed, evaluated in randomized trials, refined, and assessed during the development of real guidelines. Discussion: Results of the DECIDE project will improve the communication of evidence-based healthcare recommendations. Building on the work of the GRADE Working Group, DECIDE will develop and evaluate methods that address communication needs of guideline users. The project will produce strategies for communicating recommendations that have been rigorously evaluated in diverse settings, and it will support the transfer of research into practice in healthcare systems globally.

Delayed antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory infections.

Abstract: Background Concerns exist regarding antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) owing to adverse reactions, cost, and antibacterial resistance. One proposed strategy to reduce antibiotic prescribing is to provide prescriptions, but to advise delay in antibiotic use with the expectation that symptoms will resolve first. This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2007, and updated in 2010 and 2013. Objectives To evaluate the effects on clinical outcomes, antibiotic use, antibiotic resistance, and patient satisfaction of advising a delayed prescription of antibiotics in respiratory tract infections. Search methods For this 2017 update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2017), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infection Group's Specialised Register; Ovid MEDLINE (2013 to 25 May 2017); Ovid Embase (2013 to 2017 Week 21); EBSCO CINAHL Plus (1984 to 25 May 2017); Web of Science (2013 to 25 May 2017); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (1 September 2017); and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 September 2017). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials involving participants of all ages defined as having an RTI, where delayed antibiotics were compared to immediate antibiotics or no antibiotics. We defined a delayed antibiotic as advice to delay the filling of an antibiotic prescription by at least 48 hours. We considered all RTIs regardless of whether antibiotics were recommended or not. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Three review authors independently extracted and collated data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information. Main results For this 2017 update we added one new trial involving 405 participants with uncomplicated acute respiratory infection. Overall, this review included 11 studies with a total of 3555 participants. These 11 studies involved acute respiratory infections including acute otitis media (three studies), streptococcal pharyngitis (three studies), cough (two studies), sore throat (one study), common cold (one study), and a variety of RTIs (one study). Five studies involved only children, two only adults, and four included both adults and children. Six studies were conducted in a primary care setting, three in paediatric clinics, and two in emergency departments. Studies were well reported, and appeared to be of moderate quality. Randomisation was not adequately described in two trials. Four trials blinded the outcomes assessor, and three included blinding of participants and doctors. We conducted meta-analysis for antibiotic use and patient satisfaction. We found no differences among delayed, immediate, and no prescribed antibiotics for clinical outcomes in the three studies that recruited participants with cough. For the outcome of fever with sore throat, three of the five studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and two found no difference. For the outcome of pain related to sore throat, two studies favoured immediate antibiotics, and three found no difference. One study compared delayed antibiotics with no antibiotic for sore throat, and found no difference in clinical outcomes. Three studies included participants with acute otitis media. Of the two studies with an immediate antibiotic arm, one study found no difference for fever, and the other study favoured immediate antibiotics for pain and malaise severity on Day 3. One study including participants with acute otitis media compared delayed antibiotics with no antibiotics and found no difference for pain and fever on Day 3. Two studies recruited participants with common cold. Neither study found differences for clinical outcomes between delayed and immediate antibiotic groups. One study favoured delayed antibiotics over no antibiotics for pain, fever, and cough duration (moderate quality evidence for all clinical outcomes - GRADE assessment). There were either no differences for adverse effects or results favoured delayed antibiotics over immediate antibiotics (low quality evidence - to GRADE assessment) with no significant differences in complication rates. Delayed antibiotics resulted in a significant reduction in antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics prescription (odds ratio (OR) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.05). However, a delayed antibiotic was more likely to result in reported antibiotic use than no antibiotics (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.59 to 4.08) (moderate quality evidence - GRADE assessment). Patient satisfaction favoured delayed over no antibiotics (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.06). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between delayed antibiotics and immediate antibiotics (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.10) (moderate quality evidence - GRADE assessment). None of the included studies evaluated antibiotic resistance. Authors' conclusions For many clinical outcomes, there were no differences between prescribing strategies. Symptoms for acute otitis media and sore throat were modestly improved by immediate antibiotics compared with delayed antibiotics. There were no differences in complication rates. Delaying prescribing did not result in significantly different levels of patient satisfaction compared with immediate provision of antibiotics (86% versus 91%) (moderate quality evidence). However, delay was favoured over no antibiotics (87% versus 82%). Delayed antibiotics achieved lower rates of antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics (31% versus 93%) (moderate quality evidence). The strategy of no antibiotics further reduced antibiotic use compared to delaying prescription for antibiotics (14% versus 28%). Delayed antibiotics for people with acute respiratory infection reduced antibiotic use compared to immediate antibiotics, but was not shown to be different to no antibiotics in terms of symptom control and disease complications. Where clinicians feel it is safe not to prescribe antibiotics immediately for people with respiratory infections, no antibiotics with advice to return if symptoms do not resolve is likely to result in the least antibiotic use while maintaining similar patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes to delaying prescription of antibiotics. Where clinicians are not confident in using a no antibiotic strategy, a delayed antibiotics strategy may be an acceptable compromise in place of immediate prescribing to significantly reduce unnecessary antibiotic use for RTIs, and thereby reduce antibiotic resistance, while maintaining patient safety and satisfaction levels. Editorial note: As a living systematic review, this review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Methadone dose and neonatal abstinence syndrome-systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: Aim: To determine if there is a relationship between maternal methadone dose in pregnancy and the diagnosis or medical treatment of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS). Methods PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and PsychINFO were searched for studies reporting on methadone use in pregnancy and NAS (1966–2009). The relative risk (RR) of NAS was compared for methadone doses above versus below a range of cut-off points. Summary RRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using random effects meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of limiting meta-analyses to prospective studies or studies using an objective scoring system to diagnose NAS. Results A total of 67 studies met inclusion criteria for the systematic review; 29 were included in the meta-analysis. Any differences in the incidence of NAS in infants of women on higher compared with lower doses were statistically non-significant in analyses restricted to prospective studies or to those using an objective scoring system to diagnose NAS. Conclusions: Severity of the neonatal abstinence syndrome does not appear to differ according to whether mothers are on high- or low-dose methadone maintenance therapy.

The effectiveness of strategies to change organisational culture to improve healthcare performance: a systematic review

Abstract: Organisational culture is an anthropological metaphor used to inform research and consultancy and to explain organisational environments. In recent years, increasing emphasis has been placed on the need to change organisational culture in order to improve healthcare performance. However, the precise function of organisational culture in healthcare policy often remains underspecified and the desirability and feasibility of strategies to be adopted have been called into question. The objective of this review was to determine the effectiveness of strategies to change organisational culture in order to improve healthcare performance. We searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Knowledge, PsycINFO, Business and Management, EThOS, Index to Theses, Intute, HMIC, SIGLE, and Scopus until October 2009. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) was searched for related reviews. We also searched the reference lists of all papers and relevant reviews identified, and we contacted experts in the field for advice on further potential studies. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or well designed quasi-experimental studies (controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before and after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time series (ITS) analyses). Studies could be set in any type of healthcare organisation in which strategies to change organisational culture in order to improve healthcare performance were applied. Our main outcomes were objective measures of professional performance and patient outcome. The search strategy yielded 4,239 records. After the full text assessment, two CBA studies were included in the review. They both assessed the impact of interventions aimed at changing organisational culture, but one evaluated the impact on work-related and personal outcomes while the other measured clinical outcomes. Both were at high risk of bias. Both reported positive results. Current available evidence does not identify any effective, generalisable strategies to change organisational culture. Healthcare organisations considering implementing interventions aimed at changing culture should seriously consider conducting an evaluation (using a robust design, e.g., ITS) to strengthen the evidence about this topic.