OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and safety of growth hormone therapy in people with thalassaemia.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of latest search: 14 November 2019. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and clinical trial registries. Date of latest search: 06 January 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the use of growth hormone therapy to placebo or standard care in people with thalassaemia of any type or severity.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were also conducted independently by two authors. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS: We included one parallel trial conducted in Turkey. The trial recruited 20 children with homozygous beta thalassaemia who had short stature; 10 children received growth hormone therapy administered subcutaneously on a daily basis at a dose of 0.7 IU/kg per week and 10 children received standard care. The overall risk of bias in this trial was low except for the selection criteria and attrition bias which were unclear. The certainty of the evidence for all major outcomes was moderate, the main concern was imprecision of the estimates due to the small sample size leading to wide confidence intervals. Final height (cm) (the review's pre-specified primary outcome) and change in height were not assessed in the included trial. The trial reported no clear difference between groups in height standard deviation (SD) score after one year, mean difference (MD) -0.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.33 to 0.15 (moderate-certainty evidence). However, modest improvements appeared to be observed in the following key outcomes in children receiving growth hormone therapy compared to control (moderate-certainty evidence): change between baseline and final visit in height SD score, MD 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.39); height velocity, MD 2.28 cm/year (95% CI 1.76 to 2.80); height velocity SD score, MD 3.31 (95% CI 2.43 to 4.19); and change in height velocity SD score between baseline and final visit, MD 3.41 (95% CI 2.45 to 4.37). No adverse effects of treatment were reported in either group; however, while there was no clear difference between groups in the oral glucose tolerance test at one year, fasting blood glucose was significantly higher in the growth hormone therapy group compared to control, although both results were still within the normal range, MD 6.67 mg/dL (95% CI 2.66 to 10.68). There were no data beyond the one-year trial period.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A small single trial contributed evidence of moderate certainty that the use of growth hormone for a year may improve height velocity of children with thalassaemia although height SD score in the treatment group was similar to the control group. There are no randomised controlled trials in adults or trials that address the use of growth hormone therapy over a longer period and assess its effect on final height and quality of life. The optimal dosage of growth hormone and the ideal time to start this therapy remain uncertain. Large well-designed randomised controlled trials over a longer period with sufficient duration of follow up are needed.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and safety of growth hormone therapy in people with thalassaemia.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and clinical trial registries. Our database and trial registry searches are current to 10 August 2017 and 08 August 2017, respectively.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the use of growth hormone therapy to placebo or standard care in people with thalassaemia of any type or severity.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were also conducted independently by two authors. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS: One parallel trial conducted in Turkey was included. The trial recruited 20 children with homozygous beta thalassaemia who had short stature; 10 children received growth hormone therapy administered subcutaneously on a daily basis at a dose of 0.7 IU/kg per week and 10 children received standard care. The overall risk of bias in this trial was low except for the selection criteria and attrition bias which were unclear. The quality of the evidence for all major outcomes was moderate, the main concern was imprecision of the estimates due to the small sample size leading to wide confidence intervals. Final height (cm) (the review's pre-specified primary outcome) and change in height were not assessed in the included trial. The trial reported no clear difference between groups in height standard deviation (SD) score after one year, mean difference (MD) -0.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.33 to 0.15 (moderate quality evidence). However, modest improvements appeared to be observed in the following key outcomes in children receiving growth hormone therapy compared to control (moderate quality evidence): change between baseline and final visit in height SD score, MD 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.39); height velocity, MD 2.28 cm/year (95% CI 1.76 to 2.80); height velocity SD score, MD 3.31 (95% CI 2.43 to 4.19); and change in height velocity SD score between baseline and final visit, MD 3.41 (95% CI 2.45 to 4.37). No adverse effects of treatment were reported in either group; however, while there was no clear difference between groups in the oral glucose tolerance test at one year, fasting blood glucose was significantly higher in the growth hormone therapy group compared to control, although both results were still within the normal range, MD 6.67 mg/dL (95% CI 2.66 to 10.68). There were no data beyond the one-year trial period.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A small single trial contributed evidence of moderate quality that the use of growth hormone for a year may improve height velocity of children with thalassaemia although height SD score in the treatment group was similar to the control group. There are no randomised controlled trials in adults or trials that address the use of growth hormone therapy over a longer period and assess its effect on final height and quality of life. The optimal dosage of growth hormone and the ideal time to start this therapy remain uncertain. Large well-designed randomised controlled trials over a longer period with sufficient duration of follow up are needed.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of skin antisepsis as part of CVC care for reducing catheter-related BSIs, catheter colonisation, and patient mortality and morbidities.
SEARCH METHODS: In May 2016 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Epub Ahead of Print); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed any type of skin antiseptic agent used either alone or in combination, compared with one or more other skin antiseptic agent(s), placebo or no skin antisepsis in patients with a CVC in place.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the studies for their eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed our results in terms of risk ratio (RR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number need to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion, but only 12 studies contributed data, with a total of 3446 CVCs assessed. The total number of participants enrolled was unclear as some studies did not provide such information. The participants were mainly adults admitted to intensive care units, haematology oncology units or general wards. Most studies assessed skin antisepsis prior to insertion and regularly thereafter during the in-dwelling period of the CVC, ranging from every 24 h to every 72 h. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed due to wide variation in their risk of bias. Most trials did not adequately blind the participants or personnel, and four of the 12 studies had a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data.Three studies compared different antisepsis regimens with no antisepsis. There was no clear evidence of a difference in all outcomes examined, including catheter-related BSI, septicaemia, catheter colonisation and number of patients who required systemic antibiotics for any of the three comparisons involving three different antisepsis regimens (aqueous povidone-iodine, aqueous chlorhexidine and alcohol compared with no skin antisepsis). However, there were great uncertainties in all estimates due to underpowered analyses and the overall very low quality of evidence presented.There were multiple head-to-head comparisons between different skin antiseptic agents, with different combinations of active substance and base solutions. The most frequent comparison was chlorhexidine solution versus povidone-iodine solution (any base). There was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) that chlorhexidine may reduce catheter-related BSI compared with povidone-iodine (RR of 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99; ARR 2.30%, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.70%). This evidence came from four studies involving 1436 catheters. None of the individual subgroup comparisons of aqueous chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine, alcoholic chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine and alcoholic chlorhexidine versus alcoholic povidone-iodine showed clear differences for catheter-related BSI or mortality (and were generally underpowered). Mortality was only reported in a single study.There was very low quality evidence that skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine may also reduce catheter colonisation relative to povidone-iodine (RR of 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84; ARR 8%, 95% CI 3% to 12%; ; five studies, 1533 catheters, downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness and inconsistency).Evaluations of other skin antiseptic agents were generally in single, small studies, many of which did not report the primary outcome of catheter-related BSI. Trials also poorly reported other outcomes, such as skin infections and adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear whether cleaning the skin around CVC insertion sites with antiseptic reduces catheter related blood stream infection compared with no skin cleansing. Skin cleansing with chlorhexidine solution may reduce rates of CRBSI and catheter colonisation compared with cleaning with povidone iodine. These results are based on very low quality evidence, which means the true effects may be very different. Moreover these results may be influenced by the nature of the antiseptic solution (i.e. aqueous or alcohol-based). Further RCTs are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of different skin antisepsis regimens in CVC care; these should measure and report critical clinical outcomes such as sepsis, catheter-related BSI and mortality.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of co-bedding compared with separate (individual) care for stable preterm twins in the neonatal nursery in promoting growth and neurodevelopment and reducing short- and long-term morbidities, and to determine whether co-bedding is associated with significant adverse effects.As secondary objectives, we sought to evaluate effects of co-bedding via the following subgroup analyses: twin pairs with different weight ranges (very low birth weight [VLBW] < 1500 grams vs non-VLBW), twins with versus without significant growth discordance at birth, preterm versus borderline preterm twins, twins co-bedded in incubator versus cot at study entry, and twins randomized by twin pair versus neonatal unit.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We used keywords and medical subject headings (MeSH) to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (hosted by EBSCOHOST), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and references cited in our short-listed articles, up to February 29, 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials with randomization by twin pair and/or by neonatal unit. We excluded cross-over studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of retrieved records. We contacted the authors of included studies to request important information missing from their published papers. We expressed our results using risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) when appropriate, along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We adjusted the unit of analysis from individual infants to twin pairs by averaging measurements for each twin pair (continuous outcomes) or by counting outcomes as positive if developed by either twin (dichotomous outcomes).
MAIN RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria; however, only five studies provided data for analysis. Four of the six included studies were small and had significant limitations in design. As each study reported outcomes differently, data for most outcomes were effectively contributed by a single study. Study authors reported no differences between co-bedded twins and twins receiving separate care in terms of rate of weight gain (MD 0.20 grams/kg/d, 95% CI -1.60 to 2.00; one study; 18 pairs of twins; evidence of low quality); apnea, bradycardia, and desaturation (A/B/D) episodes (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.05; one study; 62 pairs of twins; evidence of low quality); episodes in co-regulated states (MD 0.96, 95% CI -3.44 to 5.36; one study; three pairs of twins; evidence of very low quality); suspected or proven infection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.31; three studies; 65 pairs of twins; evidence of very low quality); length of hospital stay (MD -4.90 days, 95% CI -35.23 to 25.43; one study; three pairs of twins; evidence of very low quality); and parental satisfaction measured on a scale of 0 to 55 (MD -0.38, 95% CI -4.49 to 3.73; one study; nine pairs of twins; evidence of moderate quality). Although co-bedded twins appeared to have lower pain scores 30 seconds after heel lance on a scale of 0 to 21 (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.68 to -0.23; two studies; 117 pairs of twins; I(2) = 75%; evidence of low quality), they had higher pain scores 90 seconds after the procedure (MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.86; one study; 62 pairs of twins). Substantial heterogeneity in the outcome of infant pain response after heel prick at 30 seconds post procedure and conflicting results at 30 and 90 seconds post procedure precluded clear conclusions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the benefits and harms of co-bedding for stable preterm twins was insufficient to permit recommendations for practice. Future studies must be adequately powered to detect clinically important differences in growth and neurodevelopment. Researchers should assess harms such as infection, along with medication errors and caregiver satisfaction.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of automated oxygen delivery systems, embedded within a ventilator or oxygen delivery device, for preterm infants with respiratory dysfunction who require respiratory support or supplemental oxygen therapy.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and clinical trials databases without language or publication date restrictions on 23 January 2023. We also checked the reference lists of retrieved articles for other potentially eligible trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and randomised cross-over trials that compared automated oxygen delivery versus manual oxygen delivery, or that compared different automated oxygen delivery systems head-to-head, in preterm infants (born before 37 weeks' gestation).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcomes were time (%) in desired oxygen saturation (SpO2) range, all-cause in-hospital mortality by 36 weeks' postmenstrual age, severe retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), and neurodevelopmental outcomes at approximately two years' corrected age. We expressed our results using mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies (27 reports, 457 infants), of which 13 (339 infants) contributed data to meta-analyses. We identified 13 ongoing studies. We evaluated three comparisons: automated oxygen delivery versus routine manual oxygen delivery (16 studies), automated oxygen delivery versus enhanced manual oxygen delivery with increased staffing (three studies), and one automated system versus another (two studies). Most studies were at low risk of bias for blinding of personnel and outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting; and half of studies were at low risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment. However, most were at high risk of bias in an important domain specific to cross-over trials, as only two of 16 cross-over trials provided separate outcome data for each period of the intervention (before and after cross-over). Automated oxygen delivery versus routine manual oxygen delivery Automated delivery compared with routine manual oxygen delivery probably increases time (%) in the desired SpO2 range (MD 13.54%, 95% CI 11.69 to 15.39; I2 = 80%; 11 studies, 284 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies assessed in-hospital mortality. Automated oxygen delivery compared to routine manual oxygen delivery may have little or no effect on risk of severe ROP (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.94; 1 study, 39 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes. Automated oxygen delivery versus enhanced manual oxygen delivery There may be no clear difference in time (%) in the desired SpO2 range between infants who receive automated oxygen delivery and infants who receive manual oxygen delivery (MD 7.28%, 95% CI -1.63 to 16.19; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 19 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed in-hospital mortality, severe ROP, or neurodevelopmental outcomes. Revised closed-loop automatic control algorithm (CLACfast) versus original closed-loop automatic control algorithm (CLACslow) CLACfast allowed up to 120 automated adjustments per hour, whereas CLACslow allowed up to 20 automated adjustments per hour. CLACfast may result in little or no difference in time (%) in the desired SpO2 range compared to CLACslow (MD 3.00%, 95% CI -3.99 to 9.99; 1 study, 19 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies assessed in-hospital mortality, severe ROP, or neurodevelopmental outcomes. OxyGenie compared to CLiO2 Data from a single small study were presented as medians and interquartile ranges and were not suitable for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Automated oxygen delivery compared to routine manual oxygen delivery probably increases time in desired SpO2 ranges in preterm infants on respiratory support. However, it is unclear whether this translates into important clinical benefits. The evidence on clinical outcomes such as severe retinopathy of prematurity are of low certainty, with little or no differences between groups. There is insufficient evidence to reach any firm conclusions on the effectiveness of automated oxygen delivery compared to enhanced manual oxygen delivery or CLACfast compared to CLACslow. Future studies should include important short- and long-term clinical outcomes such as mortality, severe ROP, bronchopulmonary dysplasia/chronic lung disease, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, patent ductus arteriosus, necrotising enterocolitis, and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. The ideal study design for this evaluation is a parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Studies should clearly describe staffing levels, especially in the manual arm, to enable an assessment of reproducibility according to resources in various settings. The data of the 13 ongoing studies, when made available, may change our conclusions, including the implications for practice and research.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of animal-assisted therapy for people with dementia.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS: the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 5 September 2019. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of major healthcare databases, trial registries, and grey literature sources. We also searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ISI Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO's trial registry portal.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised trials, and randomised cross-over trials that compared AAT versus no AAT, AAT using live animals versus alternatives such as robots or toys, or AAT versus any other active intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of Cochrane Dementia. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs from 10 reports. All nine studies were conducted in Europe and the US. Six studies were parallel-group, individually randomised RCTs; one was a randomised cross-over trial; and two were cluster-RCTs that were possibly related where randomisation took place at the level of the day care and nursing home. We identified two ongoing trials from trial registries. There were three comparisons: AAT versus no AAT (standard care or various non-animal-related activities), AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, and AAT using live animals versus the use of a soft animal toy. The studies evaluated 305 participants with dementia. One study used horses and the remainder used dogs as the therapy animal. The duration of the intervention ranged from six weeks to six months, and the therapy sessions lasted between 10 and 90 minutes each, with a frequency ranging from one session every two weeks to two sessions per week. There was a wide variety of instruments used to measure the outcomes. All studies were at high risk of performance bias and unclear risk of selection bias. Our certainty about the results for all major outcomes was very low to moderate. Comparing AAT versus no AAT, participants who received AAT may be slightly less depressed after the intervention (MD -2.87, 95% CI -5.24 to -0.50; 2 studies, 83 participants; low-certainty evidence), but they did not appear to have improved quality of life (MD 0.45, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.18; 3 studies, 164 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no clear differences in all other major outcomes, including social functioning (MD -0.40, 95% CI -3.41 to 2.61; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence), problematic behaviour (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.30; 3 studies, 142 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), agitation (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.10; 3 studies, 143 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), activities of daily living (MD 4.65, 95% CI -16.05 to 25.35; 1 study, 37 participants; low-certainty evidence), and self-care ability (MD 2.20, 95% CI -1.23 to 5.63; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on adverse events. Comparing AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, one study (68 participants) found mixed effects on social function, with longer duration of physical contact but shorter duration of talking in participants who received AAT using live animals versus robotic animals (median: 93 seconds with live versus 28 seconds with robotic for physical contact; 164 seconds with live versus 206 seconds with robotic for talk directed at a person; 263 seconds with live versus 307 seconds with robotic for talk in total). Another study showed no clear differences between groups in behaviour measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (MD -6.96, 95% CI -14.58 to 0.66; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence) or quality of life (MD -2.42, 95% CI -5.71 to 0.87; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on the other outcomes. Comparing AAT using live animals versus a soft toy cat, one study (64 participants) evaluated only social functioning, in the form of duration of contact and talking. The data were expressed as median and interquartile ranges. Duration of contact was slightly longer in participants in the AAT group and duration of talking slightly longer in those exposed to the toy cat. This was low-certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty evidence that AAT may slightly reduce depressive symptoms in people with dementia. We found no clear evidence that AAT affects other outcomes in this population, with our certainty in the evidence ranging from very-low to moderate depending on the outcome. We found no evidence on safety or effects on the animals. Therefore, clear conclusions cannot yet be drawn about the overall benefits and risks of AAT in people with dementia. Further well-conducted RCTs are needed to improve the certainty of the evidence. In view of the difficulty in achieving blinding of participants and personnel in such trials, future RCTs should work on blinding outcome assessors, document allocation methods clearly, and include major patient-important outcomes such as affect, emotional and social functioning, quality of life, adverse events, and outcomes for animals.
METHODS: We assessed the use of composite outcomes in neonatal RCTs included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews published till November 2017. Two authors reviewed the components of the composite outcomes to compare their patient importance and computed the ratios of effect sizes and event rates between the components, with an a priori threshold of 1.5, indicating a substantial difference. Descriptive statistics were presented.
RESULTS: We extracted 7,766 outcomes in 2,134 RCTs in 312 systematic reviews. Among them, 55 composite outcomes (0.7%) were identified in 46 RCTs. The vast majority (92.7%) of composite outcomes had 2 components, with death being the most common component (included 51 times [92.7%]). The components in nearly three-quarters of the composite outcomes (n = 40 [72.7%]) had different patient importance, while the effect sizes and event rates differed substantially between the components in 27 (49.1%) and 35 (63.6%) outcomes, respectively, with up to 43-fold difference in the event rates observed.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of composite outcomes in neonatal RCTs had different patient importance with contrasting effect sizes and event rates between the components. In patient communication, clinicians should highlight individual components, rather than the composites, with explanation on the relationship between the components, to avoid misleading impression on the effect of the intervention. Future trials should report the estimates of all individual components alongside the composite outcomes presented.
OBJECTIVES: We examined data from Cochrane Neonatal reviews to assess whether conditions that constituted KSD were included as key outcomes and how commonly they occurred in the population studied.
METHODS: We identified Cochrane reviews, published till November 2017 that evaluated interventions for neonatal jaundice (NNJ). We extracted the following information at the review and study levels: included population, outcomes assessed (in particular, whether PIOs such as KSD were listed as the primary outcomes), as well as their cumulative incidence in the reviews.
RESULTS: Out of 311 reviews, 11 evaluated interventions for NNJ with 78 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included. Among the reviews, a total number of 148 outcomes were predefined and 30 (20.3%) were PIOs related to KSD, with 11 (36.7%) listed as primary outcomes. Among the 78 included RCTs (total participants = 8,232), 38 (48.7%) enrolled predominantly high-risk and 40 (51.3%) enrolled predominantly low-risk population. A total number of 431 outcomes were reported, and 40 (9.2%) were PIOs related to KSD (of which 37 were from studies with high-risk infants), with 13 (32.5%) listed as primary outcome. Cumulatively, no infant developed KSD across all studies.
CONCLUSIONS: There is suboptimal representation of PIOs such as KSD in neonatal trials and Cochrane reviews on NNJ. Over half of the trials included populations with very low risk of KSD, which does not represent judicious use of resources. Amidst our continued search for a more reliable surrogate marker for NNJ, studies should evaluate the whole spectrum KSD alongside serum bilirubin in high-risk populations with sufficiently significant event rates, as this will make the trial methodologically feasible, with findings that will impact the population concerned.
OBJECTIVES: We determined the proportion of PIOs in neonatal RCTs included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews.
METHODS: We extracted up to 5 outcomes from each RCT included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews published until January 2018, with independent determination of PIOs among authors followed by a discussion leading to a consensus. We defined PIOs as outcomes that matter to patient care, such as clinical events or physiological or laboratory parameters that are widely used to guide management.
RESULTS: Among 6,832 outcomes extracted from 1,874 RCTs included in 276 reviews, 5,349 (78.3%) were considered PIOs; 461 studies (24.5%) included 5 or more PIOs, 1,278 (68.2%) included 1-4 PIOs, while 135 (7.2%) had no PIO included. PIOs were observed more often among dichotomous than among continuous outcomes (94.9 vs. 61.5%; RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.50-1.58), and more among subjective than among objective outcomes (95.9 vs. 76.8%; RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.22-1.28). Newer studies were more likely to have a greater number of PIOs (adjusted OR: 1.033 [95% CI: 1.025-1.041] with each publication year).
CONCLUSIONS: The large and increasing representation of PIOs over the years suggests an improving awareness by neonatal trialists of the need to incorporate important outcomes in order to justify the utilization of resources. Further research should explore the reasons for non-inclusion or non-reporting of PIOs in a small proportion of RCTs.
OBJECTIVES: We described the ROB profile of neonatal RCTs published since the 1950s.
METHODS: We analyzed individual studies within the Cochrane Neonatal reviews published up to December 2016. We extracted the reviewers' judgments on the ROB domains including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. We evaluated blinding of personnel in trials in which blinding was considered feasible.
RESULTS: We assessed 1980 RCTs published between 1952 and 2016 from 294 Cochrane Neonatal systematic reviews, with full ROB assessments performed in 848 trials (42.8%). Among the ROB domains, the highest proportion of trials (73%) were judged as satisfactory ("low risk") in handling incomplete outcome data, while fewest trials achieved blinding of outcome assessor (38.4%). In the last 6 decades, a progressive increase has been observed in the proportion of trials that were rated as low risk in random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting. However, blinding was achieved in less than half of the trials with no clear improvement across decades (23-44% since the 1980s).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite steady improvement in the overall quality of neonatal RCTs over the last 6 decades, blinding remained unsatisfactory in the majority of the trials.
OBJECTIVES: • To assess the benefits and risks of stopping compared to continuing feed management before, during, and after blood transfusion in preterm infants • To assess the effects of stopping versus continuing feeds in the following subgroups of infants: infants of different gestations; infants with symptomatic and asymptomatic anaemia; infants who received different feeding schedules, types of feed, and methods of feed delivery; infants who were transfused with different blood products, at different blood volumes, via different routes of delivery; and those who received blood transfusion with and without co-interventions such as use of diuretics • To determine the effectiveness and safety of stopping feeds around the time of a blood transfusion in reducing the risk of subsequent necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 11), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1966 to 14 November 2018); Embase (1980 to 14 November 2018); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 14 November 2018). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared stopping feeds versus continuing feeds around the time of blood transfusion in preterm infants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed trial quality, and extracted data from the included studies.
MAIN RESULTS: The search revealed seven studies that assessed effects of stopping feeds during blood transfusion. However, only one RCT involving 22 preterm infants was eligible for inclusion in the review. This RCT had low risk of selection bias but high risk of performance bias, as care personnel were not blinded to the study allocation. The primary objective of this trial was to investigate changes in mesenteric blood flow, and no cases of NEC were reported in any of the infants included in the trial. We were unable to draw any conclusions from this single study. The overall GRADE rating for quality of evidence was very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Randomised controlled trial evidence is insufficient to show whether stopping feeds has an effect on the incidence of subsequent NEC or death. Large, adequately powered RCTs are needed to address this issue.
OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to assess the effectiveness of antimicrobial impregnation, coating or bonding on CVCs in reducing clinically-diagnosed sepsis, catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI), all-cause mortality, catheter colonization and other catheter-related infections in adult participants who required central venous catheterization, along with their safety and cost effectiveness where data were available. We undertook the following comparisons: 1) catheters with antimicrobial modifications in the form of antimicrobial impregnation, coating or bonding, against catheters without antimicrobial modifications and 2) catheters with one type of antimicrobial impregnation against catheters with another type of antimicrobial impregnation. We planned to analyse the comparison of catheters with any type of antimicrobial impregnation against catheters with other antimicrobial modifications, e.g. antiseptic dressings, hubs, tunnelling, needleless connectors or antiseptic lock solutions, but did not find any relevant studies. Additionally, we planned to conduct subgroup analyses based on the length of catheter use, settings or levels of care (e.g. intensive care unit, standard ward and oncology unit), baseline risks, definition of sepsis, presence or absence of co-interventions and cost-effectiveness in different currencies.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Anaesthesia, Critical and Emergency Care Review Group (ACE). In the updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (OVID SP; 1950 to March 2015), EMBASE (1980 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015), and other Internet resources using a combination of keywords and MeSH headings. The original search was run in March 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed any type of impregnated catheter against either non-impregnated catheters or catheters with another type of impregnation in adult patients cared for in the hospital setting who required CVCs. We planned to include quasi-RCT and cluster-RCTs, but we identified none. We excluded cross-over studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using risk ratio (RR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number need to treat to benefit (NNTB) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, where appropriate, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS: We included one new study (338 participants/catheters) in this update, which brought the total included to 57 studies with 16,784 catheters and 11 types of impregnations. The total number of participants enrolled was unclear, as some studies did not provide this information. Most studies enrolled participants from the age of 18, including patients in intensive care units (ICU), oncology units and patients receiving long-term total parenteral nutrition. There were low or unclear risks of bias in the included studies, except for blinding, which was impossible in most studies due to the catheters that were being assessed having different appearances. Overall, catheter impregnation significantly reduced catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI), with an ARR of 2% (95% CI 3% to 1%), RR of 0.62 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.74) and NNTB of 50 (high-quality evidence). Catheter impregnation also reduced catheter colonization, with an ARR of 9% (95% CI 12% to 7%), RR of 0.67 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.76) and NNTB of 11 (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded due to substantial heterogeneity). However, catheter impregnation made no significant difference to the rates of clinically diagnosed sepsis (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; moderate-quality evidence, downgraded due to a suspicion of publication bias), all-cause mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07; high-quality evidence) and catheter-related local infections (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.07; 2688 catheters, moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to wide 95% CI).In our subgroup analyses, we found that the magnitudes of benefits for impregnated CVCs varied between studies that enrolled different types of participants. For the outcome of catheter colonization, catheter impregnation conferred significant benefit in studies conducted in ICUs (RR 0.70;95% CI 0.61 to 0.80) but not in studies conducted in haematological and oncological units (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.11) or studies that assessed predominantly patients who required CVCs for long-term total parenteral nutrition (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.34). However, there was no such variation for the outcome of CRBSI. The magnitude of the effects was also not affected by the participants' baseline risks.There were no significant differences between the impregnated and non-impregnated groups in the rates of adverse effects, including thrombosis/thrombophlebitis, bleeding, erythema and/or tenderness at the insertion site.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms the effectiveness of antimicrobial CVCs in reducing rates of CRBSI and catheter colonization. However, the magnitude of benefits regarding catheter colonization varied according to setting, with significant benefits only in studies conducted in ICUs. A comparatively smaller body of evidence suggests that antimicrobial CVCs do not appear to reduce clinically diagnosed sepsis or mortality significantly. Our findings call for caution in routinely recommending the use of antimicrobial-impregnated CVCs across all settings. Further randomized controlled trials assessing antimicrobial CVCs should include important clinical outcomes like the overall rates of sepsis and mortality.