METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and PubMed databases through to December 2013 using the terms "percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy", "gastrostomy", "PEG", "nasogastric", "nasogastric tube", "nasogastric feeding" and "intubation". We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs which compared PEG with NG feeding in individuals with non-stroke dysphagia.
RESULTS: 9 studies involving 847 participants were included in the final analysis, including two randomized trials. Pooled analysis indicated no significant difference in the risk of pneumonia [relative risk (RR) = 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.87-1.60] and overall complications [relative risk (RR) = 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.63-1.02] between PEG and NG feeding. A meta-analysis was not possible for mortality and nutritional outcomes, but three studies suggested improved mortality outcomes with PEG feeding while two out of three studies reported PEG feeding to be better from a nutritional perspective.
CONCLUSIONS: Firm conclusions could not be derived on whether PEG feeding is beneficial over NG feeding in older persons with non-stroke dysphagia, as previously published literature were unclear or had a high risk of bias. A well-designed and adequately powered RCT, which includes carer strain and quality of life as outcome measures is therefore urgently needed.
METHOD: A literature search using electronic databases including PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Science Direct, Springer Link, Proquest, Ebsco Host and Google Scholar was conducted. Additional articles were identified by reviewing the bibliography of retrieved articles. The articles were searched with any of the following medical subject headings (MeSH) terms in the title: attitude, awareness, knowledge, experience, view, off-label, pediatric, paediatric and children. The inclusion criteria were full text articles published in English between January 2004 and February 2015 and reported outcome related to awareness, knowledge and views regarding off-label prescribing in children. Editorials, reviews, notes, conference proceedings, letters and studies reporting prevalence of off-label prescribing were excluded. The articles were scrutinized using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Eleven studies conducted among doctors, community pharmacists, paediatric nurses, parents and children met the inclusion criteria. Nine themes were developed through document analysis which included main domains such as knowledge, awareness and views on off-label drug use in children, choice of information sources, reasons and suggestions to reduce off-label prescribing, concern regarding obtaining consent and participation in clinical trials.
CONCLUSION: The studies reviewed reported that the majority of doctors and community pharmacists were familiar with the term off-label prescribing but knowledge among parents was low. Awareness on off-label prescribing in children remains low among all study participants. There is a mismatch between views on off-label prescribing in children of study participants and the finding of previous studies.
METHODS: The Pub med data base was searched for human clinical studies, reviews pertinent to application of green tea polyphenols in periodontal health dating from Sep 1980- Sep 2014.
RESULTS: The retrieved inference from the epidemiological surveys, in vitro studies and overviews of polyphenols, postulate green tea as potential natural antioxidant. Green tea mouthwashes possess limitations, which make them ineffective during the chronic stages of periodontitis. Human studies reveal that the prognosis of periodontal disease is better when the green tea catechins are used via local drug delivery.
CONCLUSION: The maintenance of periodontal health could be enhanced by emphasizing the habit of drinking green tea in periodontitis patients. The future scope of the research demands the analysis of polyphenols at molecular level to have a better understanding of its overwhelming applications.