OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of any type of endoscopic sphincterotomy compared with a placebo drug, sham operation, or any pharmaceutical treatment, administered orally or endoscopically, alone or in combination, or a different type of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.
SEARCH METHODS: We used extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 16 May 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials assessing any type of endoscopic sphincterotomy versus placebo drug, sham operation, or any pharmaceutical treatment, alone or in combination, or a different type of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults diagnosed with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, irrespective of year, language of publication, format, or outcomes reported.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods and Review Manager to prepare the review. Our primary outcomes were: proportion of participants without successful treatment; proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events; and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were: all-cause mortality; proportion of participants with one or more non-serious adverse events; length of hospital stay; and proportion of participants without improvement in liver function tests. We used the outcome data at the longest follow-up and the random-effects model for our primary analyses. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using RoB 2 and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We planned to present the results of time-to-event outcomes as hazard ratios (HR). We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS: We included four randomised clinical trials, including 433 participants. Trials were published between 1989 and 2015. The trial participants had sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Two trials were conducted in the USA, one in Australia, and one in Japan. One was a multicentre trial conducted in seven US centres, and the remaining three were single-centre trials. One trial used a two-stage randomisation, resulting in two comparisons. The number of participants in the four trials ranged from 47 to 214 (median 86), with a median age of 45 years, and the mean proportion of males was 49%. The follow-up duration ranged from one year to four years after the end of treatment. All trials assessed one or more outcomes of interest to our review. The trials provided data for the comparisons and outcomes below, in conformity with our review protocol. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham may have little to no effect on treatment success (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.66; 3 trials, 340 participants; follow-up range 1 to 4 years); serious adverse events (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.46; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), health-related quality of life (Physical scale) (MD -1.00, 95% CI -3.84 to 1.84; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), health-related quality of life (Mental scale) (MD -1.00, 95% CI -4.16 to 2.16; 1 trial, 214 participants; follow-up 1 year), and no improvement in liver function test (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.26; 1 trial, 47 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilationmay have little to no effect on serious adverse events (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.15; 1 trial, 91 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy Endoscopic sphincterotomy versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy may have little to no effect on treatment success (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.31; 1 trial, 99 participants; follow-up 1 year), but the evidence is very uncertain. Funding One trial did not provide any information on sponsorship; one trial was funded by a foundation (the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, NIDDK), and two trials seemed to be funded by the local health institutes or universities where the investigators worked. We did not identify any ongoing randomised clinical trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low-certainty evidence from the trials included in this review, we do not know if endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham or versus dual endoscopic sphincterotomy increases, reduces, or makes no difference to the number of people with treatment success; if endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham or versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation increases, reduces, or makes no difference to serious adverse events; or if endoscopic sphincterotomy versus sham improves, worsens, or makes no difference to health-related quality of life and liver function tests in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Evidence on the effect of endoscopic sphincterotomy compared with sham, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation,or dual endoscopic sphincterotomyon all-cause mortality, non-serious adverse events, and length of hospital stay is lacking. We found no trials comparing endoscopic sphincterotomy versus a placebo drug or versus any other pharmaceutical treatment, alone or in combination. All four trials were underpowered and lacked trial data on clinically important outcomes. We lack randomised clinical trials assessing clinically and patient-relevant outcomes to demonstrate the effects of endoscopic sphincterotomy in adults with biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of various techniques of laser photocoagulation therapy in SCD-related proliferative retinopathy.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 4 July 2022. We also searched the following resources (26 June 2022): Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature Database (LILACS); WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platforms (ICTRP); and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing laser photocoagulation to no treatment in children and adults with SCD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias of the included trials; we extracted and analysed data, contacting trial authors for additional information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials (414 eyes of 339 children and adults) comparing the efficacy and safety of laser photocoagulation to no therapy in people with PSR. There were 160 males and 179 females ranging in age from 13 to 67 years. The trials used different laser photocoagulation techniques; one single-centre trial employed sectoral scatter laser photocoagulation using an argon laser; a two-centre trial employed feeder vessel coagulation using argon laser in one centre and xenon arc in the second centre; while a third trial employed focal scatter laser photocoagulation using argon laser. The mean follow-up periods were 21 to 32 months in one trial, 42 to 47 months in a second, and 48 months in the third. Two trials had a high risk of allocation bias due to the randomisation method for participants with bilateral disease; the third trial had an unclear risk of selection bias. One trial was at risk of reporting bias. Given the unit of analysis is the eye rather than the individual, we chose to report the data narratively. Using sectoral scatter laser photocoagulation, one trial (174 eyes) reported no difference between groups for complete regression of PSR: 30.2% in the laser group and 22.4% in the control group. The same trial also reported no difference between groups in the development of new PSR: 34.3% of lasered eyes and 41.3% of control eyes (very low-certainty evidence). The two-centre trial using feeder vessel coagulation, only presented data at follow-up for one centre (mean period of nine years) and reported the development of new sea fan in 48.0% in the treated and 45.0% in the control group; no statistical significance (P = 0.64). A third trial reported regression in 55% of the laser group versus 28.6% of controls and progression of PSR in 10.5% of treated versus 25.7% of control eyes. We graded the evidence for these two primary outcomes as very low-certainty evidence. The sectoral scatter laser photocoagulation trial reported visual loss in 3.0% of treated eyes (mean follow-up 47 months) versus 12.0% of controlled eyes (mean follow-up 42 months) (P = 0.019). The feeder vessel coagulation trial reported visual loss in 1.14% of the laser group and 7.5% of the control group (mean follow-up 26 months at one site and 32 months in another) (P = 0.07). The focal scatter laser photocoagulation trial (mean follow-up of four years) reported that 72/73 eyes had the same visual acuity, while visual loss was seen in only one eye from the control group. We graded the certainty of the evidence as very low. The sectoral scatter laser trial detected vitreous haemorrhage in 12.0% of the laser group and 25.3% of control with a mean follow-up of 42 (control) to 47 months (treated) (P ≤ 0.5). The two-centre feeder vessel coagulation trial observed vitreous haemorrhage in 3.4% treated eyes (mean follow-up 26 months) versus 27.5% control eyes (mean follow-up 32 months); one centre (mean follow-up nine years) reported vitreous haemorrhage in 1/25 eyes (4.0%) in the treatment group and 9/20 eyes (45.0%) in the control group (P = 0.002). The scatter laser photocoagulation trial reported that vitreous haemorrhage was not seen in the treated group compared to 6/35 (17.1%) eyes in the control group and appeared only in the grades B and (PSR) stage III) (P < 0.05). We graded evidence for this outcome as low-certainty. Regarding adverse effects, only one occurrence of retinal tear was reported. All three trials reported on retinal detachment, with no significance across the treatment and control groups (low-certainty evidence). One trial reported on choroidal neovascularization, with treatment with xenon arc found to be associated with a significantly higher risk, but visual loss related to this complication is uncommon with long-term follow-up of three years or more. The included trials did not report on other adverse effects or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our conclusions are based on the data from three trials (two of which were conducted over 30 years ago). Given the limited evidence available, which we assessed to be of low- or very low-certainty, we are uncertain whether laser therapy for sickle cell retinopathy improves the outcomes measured in this review. This treatment does not appear to have an effect on clinical outcomes such as regression of PSR and development of new incidences. No evidence is available assessing efficacy in relation to patient-important outcomes (such as quality of life or the loss of a driving licence). Further research is needed to examine the safety of laser treatment compared to other interventions such as intravitreal injection of anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs) . Patient-important outcomes as well as cost-effectiveness should be addressed.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of magnesium sulfate for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, EU Clinical Trials Register and Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials. We also searched the proceedings of major respiratory conferences and reference lists of included studies up to 2 August 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included single- or double-blind parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing magnesium sulfate in adults with COPD exacerbations. We excluded cross-over trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were: hospital admissions (from the emergency room); need for non-invasive ventilation (NIV), assisted ventilation or admission to intensive-care unit (ICU); and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: length of hospital stay, mortality, adverse events, dyspnoea score, lung function and blood gas measurements. We assessed confidence in the evidence using GRADE methodology. For missing data, we contacted the study investigators.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 RCTs (10 double-blind and 1 single-blind) with a total 762 participants. The mean age of participants ranged from 62 to 76 years. Trials were single- or two-centre trials conducted in Iran, New Zealand, Nepal, Turkey, the UK, Tunisia and the USA between 2004 and 2018. We judged studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias for most of the domains. Three studies were at high risk for blinding and other biases. Intravenous magnesium sulfate versus placebo Seven studies (24 to 77 participants) were included. Fewer people may require hospital admission with magnesium infusion compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.88; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 7; 3 studies, 170 participants; low-certainty evidence). Intravenous magnesium may result in little to no difference in the requirement for non-invasive ventilation (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.75; very low-certainty evidence). There were no reported cases of endotracheal intubation (2 studies, 107 participants) or serious adverse events (1 study, 77 participants) in either group. Included studies did not report intensive care unit (ICU) admission or deaths. Magnesium infusion may reduce the length of hospital stay by a mean difference (MD) of 2.7 days (95% CI 4.73 days to 0.66 days; 2 studies, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence) and improve dyspnoea score by a standardised mean difference of -1.40 (95% CI -1.83 to -0.96; 2 studies, 101 participants; low-certainty evidence). We were uncertain about the effect of magnesium infusion on improving lung function or oxygen saturation. For all adverse events, the Peto OR was 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.00; 102 participants); however, the event rate was too low to reach a robust conclusion. Nebulised magnesium sulfate versus placebo Three studies (20 to 172 participants) were included. Magnesium inhalation may have little to no impact on hospital admission (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or need for ventilatory support (NIV or mechanical ventilation) (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.20; very low-certainty evidence). It may result in fewer ICU admissions compared to placebo (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.00; very low-certainty evidence) and improvement in dyspnoea (MD -14.37, 95% CI -26.00 to -2.74; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no serious adverse events reported in either group. There was one reported death in the placebo arm in one trial, but the number of participants was too small for a conclusion. There was limited evidence about the effect of magnesium inhalation on length of hospital stay, lung function outcomes or oxygen saturation. Included studies did not report adverse events. Magnesium sulfate versus ipratropium bromide A single study with 124 participants assessed nebulised magnesium sulfate plus intravenous magnesium infusion versus nebulised ipratropium plus intravenous normal saline. There was little to no difference between these groups in terms of hospital admission (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.37), endotracheal intubation (OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.71) and length of hospital stay (MD 1.10 days, 95% CI -0.22 to 2.42), all with very low-certainty evidence. There were no data available for non-invasive ventilation, ICU admission and serious adverse events. Adverse events were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous magnesium sulfate may be associated with fewer hospital admissions, reduced length of hospital stay and improved dyspnoea scores compared to placebo. There is no evidence of a difference between magnesium infusion and placebo for NIV, lung function, oxygen saturation or adverse events. We found no evidence for ICU admission, endotracheal intubation, serious adverse events or mortality. For nebulised magnesium sulfate, we are unable to draw conclusions about its effects in COPD exacerbations for most of the outcomes. Studies reported possibly lower ICU admissions and a lesser degree of dyspnoea with magnesium inhalation compared to placebo; however, larger studies are required to yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes. Similarly, we could not identify any robust evidence for magnesium sulfate compared to ipratropium bromide. Future well-designed multicentre trials with larger samples are required, including subgroups according to severity of exacerbations and COPD phenotypes.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of D-cycloserine compared with placebo for social and communication skills in individuals with ASD.
SEARCH METHODS: In November 2020, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of relevant publications and contacted the authors of the included study, Minshawi 2016, to identify any additional studies. In addition, we contacted pharmaceutical companies, searched manufacturers' websites and sources of reports of adverse events. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any duration and dose of D-cycloserine, with or without adjunct treatment, compared to placebo in individuals with ASD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted relevant data, assessed the risk of bias, graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach, and analysed and evaluated the data. We provide a narrative report of the findings as only one study is included in this review.
MAIN RESULTS: We included a single RCT (Minshawi 2016) funded by the United States Department of Defense. It was conducted at two sites in the USA: Indiana University School of Medicine and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Centre. In the included study, 67 children with ASD aged between 5 and 11 years were randomised to receive either 10 weeks (10 doses) of (50 mg) D-cycloserine plus social skills training, or placebo plus social skills training. Randomisation was carried out 1:1 between D-cycloserine and placebo arms, and outcome measures were recorded at one-week post-treatment. The 'risk of bias' assessment for the included study was low for five domains and unclear for two domains. The study (67 participants) reported low certainty evidence of little to no difference between the two groups for all outcomes measured at one week post-treatment: social interaction impairment (mean difference (MD) 3.61 (assessed with the Social Responsiveness Scale), 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.60 to 12.82); social communication impairment (MD -1.08 (measured using the inappropriate speech subscale of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC)), 95% CI -2.34 to 0.18); restricted, repetitive, stereotyped patterns of behaviour (MD 0.12 (measured by the ABC stereotypy subscale), 95% CI -1.71 to 1.95); serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.31); non-core symptoms of ASD (RR 0.97 (measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale), 95% CI 0.49 to 1.93); and tolerability of D-cycloserine (RR 0.32 (assessed by the number of dropouts), 95% CI 0.01 to 7.68). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are unable to conclude with certainty whether D-cycloserine is effective for individuals with ASD. This review included low certainty data from only one study with methodological issues and imprecision. The added value of this review compared to the included study is we assessed the risk of bias and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Moreover, if we find new trials in future updates of this review, we could potentially pool the data, which may either strengthen or decrease the evidence for our findings.