MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board and informed consent was waived. Between January 2007 and January 2011, the clinical data and imaging studies of 28 patients older than 18 years diagnosed with renal anomaly at the authors' institution were retrospectively reviewed. Renal anomalies in this study included only those with abnormality in position and in form.
RESULTS: Of these 28 patients, 22 underwent imaging studies and their results constituted the material of this study. Of the 22 patients, 14 had horseshoe kidneys (HSK), four had crossed renal ectopia and four had malrotation. Sixteen patients were men and six were women. The patients ranged in age from 19 to 74 years (mean age 51.1 years). Clinical presentations were abdominal pain (13), fever (13), haematuria (4), palpable mass (2), asymptomatic (2), polyuria (1) dysuria (1), blurred vision (1), and headache with weakness of left extremities (1). Imaging studies included abdominal radiograph (15), intravenous pyelography (IVP) (8), retrograde pyelography (RP) (4), ultrasonography (US) (7), and computed tomography (CT) (9). Associated complications included urinary tract stones (17), urinary tract infection (16), hydronephrosis (12), and tumours (2). Abdominal radiograph suggested renal anomalies in nine out of 15 studies. IVP, RP, US and CT suggested anomalies in all patients who had these studies performed. However, CT was the best imaging modality to evaluate anatomy, function and complications of patients with renal anomalies.
CONCLUSION: HSK was the most common renal anomaly, with abdominal pain and fever being the most common presentations. UTI and stones were the most common complications. IVP, RP, US and CT can be used to diagnose renal anomalies but CT is the best imaging modality to evaluate renal anatomy, function and its complications.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of mormodica charantia for type 2 diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH METHODS: Several electronic databases were searched, among these were The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2012), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SIGLE and LILACS (all up to February 2012), combined with handsearches. No language restriction was used.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared momordica charantia with placebo or a control intervention, with or without pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data. Risk of bias of the trials was evaluated using the parameters of randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other potential sources of bias. A meta-analysis was not performed given the quality of data and the variability of preparations of momordica charantia used in the interventions (no similar preparation was tested twice).
MAIN RESULTS: Four randomised controlled trials with up to three months duration and investigating 479 participants met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias of these trials (only two studies were published as a full peer-reviewed publication) was generally high. Two RCTs compared the effects of preparations from different parts of the momordica charantia plant with placebo on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. There was no statistically significant difference in the glycaemic control with momordica charantia preparations compared to placebo. When momordica charantia was compared to metformin or glibenclamide, there was also no significant change in reliable parameters of glycaemic control. No serious adverse effects were reported in any trial. No trial investigated death from any cause, morbidity, health-related quality of life or costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence on the effects of momordica charantia for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Further studies are therefore required to address the issues of standardization and the quality control of preparations. For medical nutritional therapy, further observational trials evaluating the effects of momordica charantia are needed before RCTs are established to guide any recommendations in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of EMT on the healing of pressure ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 12 July 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to July Week 1 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 11, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to 2012 Week 27); and EBSCO CINAHL (2010 to 6 July 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing EMT with sham EMT or other (standard) treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update two review authors independently scrutinised the results of the search to identify relevant RCTs and obtained full reports of potentially eligible studies. In previous versions of the review we made attempts to obtain missing data by contacting study authors. A second review author checked data extraction and disagreements were resolved after discussion between review authors.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new trials for this update.Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving 60 participants, at unclear risk of bias were included in the original review. Both trials compared the use of EMT with sham EMT, although one of the trials included a third arm in which only standard therapy was applied. Neither study found a statistically significant difference in complete healing in people treated with EMT compared with those in the control group. In one trial that assessed percentage reduction in wound surface area, the difference between the two groups was reported to be statistically significant in favour of EMT. However, this result should be interpreted with caution as this is a small study and this finding may be due to chance. Additionally, the outcome, percentage reduction in wound area, is less clinically meaningful than complete healing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results provide no strong evidence of benefit in using EMT to treat pressure ulcers. However, the possibility of a beneficial or harmful effect cannot be ruled out because there were only two included trials, both with methodological limitations and small numbers of participants. Further research is recommended.