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 effects of interventions for treating different types of post-extraction bleeding.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 January 2018), Embase Ovid (1 May 2015 to 24 January 2018) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 24 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. We searched the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any intervention for treating PEB, with male or female participants of any age, regardless of type of teeth (anterior or posterior, mandibular or maxillary). Trials could compare one type of intervention with another, with placebo, or with no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three pairs of review authors independently screened search records. We obtained full papers for potentially relevant trials. If data had been extracted, we would have followed the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for the statistical analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any randomised controlled trial suitable for inclusion in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to identify any reports of randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of different interventions for the treatment of post-extraction bleeding. In view of the lack of reliable evidence on this topic, clinicians must use their clinical experience to determine the most appropriate means of treating this condition, depending on patient-related factors. There is a need for well designed and appropriately conducted clinical trials on this topic, which conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of various interventions for the treatment of oro-antral communications and fistulae due to dental procedures.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (whole database, to 3 July 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 3 July 2015), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 3 July 2015), US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (http://clinicaltrials.gov) (whole database, to 3 July 2015) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/) (whole database, to 3 July 2015). We also searched the reference lists of included and excluded trials for any randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs evaluating any intervention for treating oro-antral communications or oro-antral fistulae due to dental procedures. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. We excluded studies on participants who had oro-antral communications, fistulae or both related to Caldwell-Luc procedure or surgical excision of tumours.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials. Two review authors assessed trial risk of bias and extracted data independently. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included only one study in this review, which compared two surgical interventions: pedicled buccal fat pad flap and buccal flap for the treatment of oro-antral communications. The study involved 20 participants. The risk of bias was unclear. The relevant outcome reported in this trial was successful (complete) closure of oro-antral communication.The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome was very low. The study did not find evidence of a difference between interventions for the successful (complete) closure of an oro-antral communication (RR 1.00, 95% Cl 0.83 to 1.20) one month after the surgery. All oro-antral communications in both groups were successfully closed so there were no adverse effects due to treatment failure.We did not find trials evaluating any other intervention for treating oro-antral communications or fistulae due to dental procedures.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence from a single small study that compared pedicled buccal fat pad and buccal flap. The evidence was insufficient to judge whether there is a difference in the effectiveness of these interventions as all oro-antral communications in the study were successfully closed by one month after surgery. Large, well-conducted RCTs investigating different interventions for the treatment of oro-antral communications and fistulae caused by dental procedures are needed to inform clinical practice.
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.
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effectiveness and safety of antimicrobial (antiseptic or antibiotic) dressings in reducing CVC-related infections in newborn infants. Had there been relevant data, we would have evaluated the effects of antimicrobial dressings in different subgroups, including infants who received different types of CVCs, infants who required CVC for different durations, infants with CVCs with and without other antimicrobial modifications, and infants who received an antimicrobial dressing with and without a clearly defined co-intervention.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (EBCHOST), CINAHL and references cited in our short-listed articles using keywords and MeSH headings, up to September 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared an antimicrobial CVC dressing against no dressing or another dressing in newborn infants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS: Out of 173 articles screened, three studies were included. There were two comparisons: chlorhexidine dressing following alcohol cleansing versus polyurethane dressing following povidone-iodine cleansing (one study); and silver-alginate patch versus control (two studies). A total of 855 infants from level III neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) were evaluated, 705 of whom were from a single study. All studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of care personnel or unclear risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessors. There was moderate-quality evidence for all major outcomes.The single study comparing chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing against polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing showed no significant difference in the risk of CRBSI (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.65; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; 655 infants, moderate-quality evidence) and sepsis without a source (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.52; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; 705 infants, moderate-quality evidence). There was a significant reduction in the risk of catheter colonisation favouring chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86; RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.03; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11, 95% CI 7 to 33; 655 infants, moderate-quality evidence). However, infants in the chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group were significantly more likely to develop contact dermatitis, with 19 infants in the chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group having developed contact dermatitis compared to none in the polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing group (RR 43.06, 95% CI 2.61 to 710.44; RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 17, 95% CI 13 to 33; 705 infants, moderate-quality evidence). The roles of chlorhexidine dressing in the outcomes reported were unclear, as the two assigned groups received different co-interventions in the form of different skin cleansing agents prior to catheter insertion and during each dressing change.In the other comparison, silver-alginate patch versus control, the data for CRBSI were analysed separately in two subgroups as the two included studies reported the outcome using different denominators: one using infants and another using catheters. There were no significant differences between infants who received silver-alginate patch against infants who received standard line dressing in CRBSI, whether expressed as the number of infants (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.78; RD -0.12, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.09; 1 study, 50 participants, moderate-quality evidence) or as the number of catheters (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.89; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.10; 1 study, 118 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no significant difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.05; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.05; two studies, 150 infants, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). No adverse skin reaction was recorded in either group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate-quality evidence, chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol skin cleansing reduced catheter colonisation, but made no significant difference in major outcomes like sepsis and CRBSI compared to polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing. Chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing posed a substantial risk of contact dermatitis in preterm infants, although it was unclear whether this was contributed mainly by the dressing material or the cleansing agent. While silver-alginate patch appeared safe, evidence is still insufficient for a recommendation in practice. Future research that evaluates antimicrobial dressing should ensure blinding of caregivers and outcome assessors and ensure that all participants receive the same co-interventions, such as the skin cleansing agent. Major outcomes like sepsis, CRBSI and mortality should be assessed in infants of different gestation and birth weight.
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the efficacy and possible adverse effects of folate supplementation (folate occurring naturally in foods, provided as fortified foods or additional supplements such as tablets) in people with SCD.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also conducted additional searches in both electronic databases and clinical trial registries.Date of last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 17 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials of folate supplementation for SCD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors assessed We used the standard Cochrane-defined methodological procedures.Four review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the included trials and extracted and analysed the data included in the review. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: One trial, undertaken in 1983, was eligible for inclusion in the review. This was a double-blind placebo-controlled quasi-randomised triaI of supplementation of folic acid in people with SCD. A total of 117 children with homozygous sickle cell (SS) disease aged six months to four years of age participated over a one-year period (analysis was restricted to 115 children).Serum folate measures, obtained after trial entry at six and 12 months, were available in 80 of 115 (70%) participants. There were significant differences between the folic acid and placebo groups with regards to serum folate values above 18 µg/L and values below 5 µg/L (low-quality evidence). In the folic acid group, values above 18 µg/L were observed in 33 of 41 (81%) compared to six of 39 (15%) participants in the placebo (calcium lactate) group. Additionally, there were no participants in the folic acid group with serum folate levels below 5 µg/L, whereas in the placebo group, 15 of 39 (39%) participants had levels below this threshold. Haematological indices were measured in 100 of 115 (87%) participants at baseline and at one year. After adjusting for sex and age group, the investigators reported no significant differences between the trial groups with regards to total haemoglobin concentrations, either at baseline or at one year (low-quality evidence). It is important to note that none of the raw data for the outcomes listed above were available for analysis.The proportions of participants who experienced certain clinical events were analysed in all 115 participants, for which raw data were available. There were no statistically significant differences noted; however, the trial was not powered to investigate differences between the folic acid and placebo groups with regards to: minor infections, risk ratio (RR) 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.15) (low-quality evidence); major infections, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.66) (low-quality evidence); dactylitis, RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.27) (low-quality evidence); acute splenic sequestration, RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.57) (low-quality evidence); or episodes of pain, RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.92) (low-quality evidence). However, the investigators reported a higher proportion of repeat dactylitis episodes in the placebo group, with two or more attacks occurring in 10 of 56 participants compared to two of 59 in the folic acid group (P < 0.05).Growth, determined by height-for-age and weight-for-age, as well as height and growth velocity, was measured in 103 of the 115 participants (90%), for which raw data were not available. The investigators reported no significant differences in growth between the two groups.The trial had a high risk of bias with regards to random sequence generation and incomplete outcome data. There was an unclear risk of bias in relation to allocation concealment, outcome assessment, and selective reporting. Finally, There was a low risk of bias with regards to blinding of participants and personnel. Overall the quality of the evidence in the review was low.There were no trials identified for other eligible comparisons, namely: folate supplementation (fortified foods and physical supplementation with tablets) versus placebo; folate supplementation (naturally occurring in diet) versus placebo; folate supplementation (fortified foods and physical supplementation with tablets) versus folate supplementation (naturally occurring in diet).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: One doubIe-blind, placebo-controlled triaI on folic acid supplementation in children with SCD was included in the review. Overall, the trial presented mixed evidence on the review's outcomes. No trials in adults were identified. With the limited evidence provided, we conclude that, while it is possible that folic acid supplementation may increase serum folate levels, the effect of supplementation on anaemia and any symptoms of anaemia remains unclear.If further trials were conducted, these may add evidence regarding the efficacy of folate supplementation. Future trials should assess clinical outcomes such as folate concentration, haemoglobin concentration, adverse effects and benefits of the intervention, especially with regards to SCD-related morbidity. Such trials should include people with SCD of all ages and both sexes, in any setting. To investigate the effects of folate supplementation, trials should recruit more participants and be of longer duration, with long-term follow-up, than the trial currently included in this review. However, we do not envisage further trials of this intervention will be conducted, and hence the review will no longer be regularly updated.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of desmopressin acetate in preventing and treating acute bleeds during pregnancy in women with congenital bleeding disorders.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coaguopathies Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant and abstract books of conferences proceedings. We also searched for any randomised controlled trials in a registry of ongoing trials and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of most recent search: 18 June 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials investigating the efficacy of desmopressin acetate versus tranexamic acid or factor VIII or rFactor VII or fresh frozen plasma in preventing and treating congenital bleeding disorders during pregnancy were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No trials matching the selection criteria were eligible for inclusion.
MAIN RESULTS: No trials matching the selection criteria were eligible for inclusion.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The review did not identify any randomised controlled trials investigating the relative effectiveness of desmopressin acetate for bleeding during pregnancy in women with congenital bleeding disorders. In the absence of high quality evidence, clinicians need to use their clinical judgement and lower level evidence (e.g. from observational trials) to decide whether or not to treat women with congenital bleeding disorders with desmopressin acetate.Given the ethical considerations, future randomised controlled trials are unlikely. However, other high quality controlled studies (such as risk allocation designs, sequential design, parallel cohort design) to investigate the risks and benefits of using desmopressin acetate in this population are needed.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to compare SFH measurement with serial ultrasound measurement of fetal parameters or clinical palpation to detect abnormal fetal growth (IUGR and large-for-gestational age), and improving perinatal outcome.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 July 2015) and reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials including quasi-randomised and cluster-randomised trials involving pregnant women with singleton fetuses at 20 weeks' gestation and above comparing tape measurement of SFH with serial ultrasound measurement of fetal parameters or clinical palpation using anatomical landmarks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS: One trial involving 1639 women was included. It compared SFH measurement with clinical abdominal palpation.There was no difference in the two reported primary outcomes of incidence of small-for-gestational age (risk ratio (RR) 1.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.90, low quality evidence) or perinatal death.(RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.07; participants = 1639, low quality evidence). There were no data on the neonatal detection of large-for-gestational age (variously defined by authors). There was no difference in the reported secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycaemia, admission to neonatal nursery, admission to the neonatal nursery for IUGR (low quality evidence), induction of labour and caesarean section (very low quality evidence). The trial did not address the other outcomes specified in the 'Summary of findings' table (intrauterine death; neurodevelopmental outcome in childhood). GRADEpro software was used to assess the quality of evidence, downgrading of evidence was based on including a small single study with unclear risk of bias and a wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine whether SFH measurement is effective in detecting IUGR. We cannot therefore recommended any change of current practice. Further trials are needed.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment to improve reproductive outcomes in women and their partners who are identified as carriers of thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease in healthcare settings when compared to usual care.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Registers. In addition, we searched for all relevant trials from 1970 (or the date at which the database was first available if after 1970) to date using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO), clinical trial databases (National Institutes of Health, Clinical Trials Search portal of the World Health Organization, metaRegister of controlled clinical trials), and hand searching of key journals and conference abstract books from 1998 to date (European Journal of Human Genetics, Genetics in Medicine, Journal of Community Genetics). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, reviews and guidelines and also contacted subject experts in the field to request any unpublished or other published trials.Date of latest search of the registers: 20 June 2017.Date of latest search of all other sources: 16 November 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Any randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials (published or unpublished) comparing reproductive outcomes of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease when compared to usual care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified 25 papers, describing 16 unique trials which were potentially eligible for inclusion in the review. However, after assessment, no randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease were found.
MAIN RESULTS: No randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease were included. One ongoing trial has been identified which may potentially eligible for inclusion once completed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As no randomised controlled trials of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, or Tay-Sachs disease were found for inclusion in this review, the research evidence for current policy recommendations is limited to non-randomised studies.Information from well-designed, adequately powered, randomised trials is desirable in order to make more robust recommendations for practice. However, such trials must also consider the legal, ethical, and cultural barriers to implementation of preconception genetic risk assessment.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for the management of patients with taste disturbances.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 5 March 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE via OVID (1948 to 5 March 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 March 2014), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 5 March 2014) and AMED via OVID (1985 to 5 March 2014). We also searched the relevant clinical trial registries and conference proceedings from the International Association of Dental Research/American Association of Dental Research (to 5 March 2014), Association for Research in Otolaryngology (to 5 March 2014), the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (to 5 March 2014), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (to 5 March 2014), World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (to 5 March 2014) and International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) Clinical Trials Portal (to 5 March 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological agent with a control intervention or any non-pharmacological agent with a control intervention. We also included cross-over trials in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently, and in duplicate, assessed the quality of trials and extracted data. Wherever possible, we contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse events information from the trials.
MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials (seven parallel and two cross-over RCTs) with 566 participants. We assessed three trials (33.3%) as having a low risk of bias, four trials (44.5%) at high risk of bias and two trials (22.2%) as having an unclear risk of bias. We only included studies on taste disorders in this review that were either idiopathic, or resulting from zinc deficiency or chronic renal failure.Of these, eight trials with 529 people compared zinc supplements to placebo for patients with taste disorders. The participants in two trials were children and adolescents with respective mean ages of 10 and 11.2 years and the other six trials had adult participants. Out of these eight, two trials assessed the patient reported outcome for improvement in taste acuity using zinc supplements (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.1; very low quality evidence). We included three trials in the meta-analysis for overall taste improvement (effect size 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.65; moderate quality evidence). Two other trials described the results as taste acuity improvement and we conducted subgroup analyses due to clinical heterogeneity. One trial described the results as taste recognition improvement for each taste sensation and we analysed this separately. We also analysed one cross-over trial separately using the first half of the results. None of the zinc trials tested taste discrimination. Only one trial tested taste discrimination using acupuncture (effect size 2.80, 95% CI -1.18 to 6.78; low quality evidence).Out of the eight trials using zinc supplementation, four reported adverse events like eczema, nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, constipation, decrease in blood iron, increase in blood alkaline phosphatase, and minor increase in blood triglycerides. No adverse events were reported in the acupuncture trial.None of the included trials could be included in the meta-analysis for health-related quality of life in taste disorder patients.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that was insufficient to conclude on the role of zinc supplements to improve taste perception by patients, however we found moderate quality evidence that zinc supplements improve overall taste improvement in patients with zinc deficiency/idiopathic taste disorders. We also found low quality evidence that zinc supplements improve taste acuity in zinc deficient/idiopathic taste disorders and very low quality evidence for taste recognition improvement in children with taste disorders secondary to chronic renal failure. We did not find any evidence to conclude the role of zinc supplements for improving taste discrimination, or any evidence addressing health-related quality of life due to taste disorders.We found low quality evidence that is not sufficient to conclude on the role of acupuncture for improving taste discrimination in cases of idiopathic dysgeusia (distortion of taste) and hypogeusia (reduced ability to taste). We were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of zinc supplements or acupuncture as none of the trials compared these interventions.
OBJECTIVES: To compare techniques of blood glucose monitoring and their impact on maternal and infant outcomes among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016), searched reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing techniques of blood glucose monitoring including SMBG, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) or clinic monitoring among pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2). Trials investigating timing and frequency of monitoring were also included. RCTs using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion but none were identified.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes at total of 10 trials (538) women (468 women with type 1 diabetes and 70 women with type 2 diabetes). The trials took place in Europe and the USA. Five of the 10 included studies were at moderate risk of bias, four studies were at low to moderate risk of bias, and one study was at high risk of bias. The trials are too small to show differences in important outcomes such as macrosomia, preterm birth, miscarriage or death of baby. Almost all the reported GRADE outcomes were assessed as being very low-quality evidence. This was due to design limitations in the studies, wide confidence intervals, small sample sizes, and few events. In addition, there was high heterogeneity for some outcomes.Various methods of glucose monitoring were compared in the trials. Neither pooled analyses nor individual trial analyses showed any clear advantages of one monitoring technique over another for primary and secondary outcomes. Many important outcomes were not reported.1. Self-monitoring versus standard care (two studies, 43 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 1.49; one study, 28 women) or glycaemic control (both very low-quality), and not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and neonatal mortality and morbidity composite. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, neurosensory disability, and preterm birth were not reported in either study.2. Self-monitoring versus hospitalisation (one study, 100 women): there was no clear difference for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre-eclampsia and hypertension) (RR 4.26, 95% CI 0.52 to 35.16; very low-quality: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.22; very low-quality). There was no clear difference in caesarean section or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (both very low quality), and the sample size was too small to assess perinatal mortality (very low-quality). Large-for-gestational age, mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.3. Pre-prandial versus post-prandial glucose monitoring (one study, 61 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.28; very low-quality), large-for-gestational age (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.85; very low-quality) or glycaemic control (very low-quality). The results for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality are not meaningful because these outcomes were too rare to show differences in a small sample (all very low-quality). The study did not report the outcomes mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability or preterm birth.4. Automated telemedicine monitoring versus conventional system (three studies, 84 women): there was no clear difference for caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.48; one study, 32 women; very low-quality), and mortality or morbidity composite in the one study that reported these outcomes. There were no clear differences for glycaemic control (very low-quality). No studies reported hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), neurosensory disability or preterm birth.5.CGM versus intermittent monitoring (two studies, 225 women): there was no clear difference for pre-eclampsia (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.59; low-quality), caesarean section (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54; I² = 62%; very low-quality) and large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.92; I² = 82%; very low-quality). Glycaemic control indicated by mean maternal HbA1c was lower for women in the continuous monitoring group (mean difference (MD) -0.60 %, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.29; one study, 71 women; moderate-quality). There was not enough evidence to assess perinatal mortality and there were no clear differences for preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (low-quality). Mortality or morbidity composite, neurosensory disability and preterm birth less than 34 weeks were not reported.6. Constant CGM versus intermittent CGM (one study, 25 women): there was no clear difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.79; very low-quality), glycaemic control (mean blood glucose in the 3rd trimester) (MD -0.14 mmol/L, 95% CI -2.00 to 1.72; very low-quality) or preterm birth less than 37 weeks' gestation (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.08 to 15.46; very low-quality). Other primary (hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, large-for-gestational age, perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality), mortality or morbidity composite, and neurosensory disability) or GRADE outcomes (preterm birth less than 34 weeks' gestation) were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.