Methods: We searched seven databases up to July 2020 for randomized controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of telemedicine in the delivery of diabetes care in low- and middle-income countries. We extracted data on the study characteristics, primary end-points and effect sizes of outcomes. Using random effects analyses, we ran a series of meta-analyses for both biochemical outcomes and related patient properties.

Findings: We included 31 interventions in our meta-analysis. We observed significant standardized mean differences of -0.38 for glycated haemoglobin (95% confidence interval, CI: -0.52 to -0.23; I2 = 86.70%), -0.20 for fasting blood sugar (95% CI: -0.32 to -0.08; I2 = 64.28%), 0.81 for adherence to treatment (95% CI: 0.19 to 1.42; I2 = 93.75%), 0.55 for diabetes knowledge (95% CI: -0.10 to 1.20; I2 = 92.65%) and 1.68 for self-efficacy (95% CI: 1.06 to 2.30; I2 = 97.15%). We observed no significant treatment effects for other outcomes, with standardized mean differences of -0.04 for body mass index (95% CI: -0.13 to 0.05; I2 = 35.94%), -0.06 for total cholesterol (95% CI: -0.16 to 0.04; I2 = 59.93%) and -0.02 for triglycerides (95% CI: -0.12 to 0.09; I2 = 0%). Interventions via telephone and short message service yielded the highest treatment effects compared with services based on telemetry and smartphone applications.

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.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of different types of systemic immunosuppressive treatments for moderate to severe eczema using NMA and to generate rankings of available systemic immunosuppressive treatments for eczema according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to August 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic immunosuppressive agents for moderate to severe atopic eczema when compared against placebo or any other eligible eczema treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We synthesised data using pair-wise analysis and NMA to compare treatments and rank them according to their effectiveness. Effectiveness was assessed primarily by determining the proportion of participants who achieved at least 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) and improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Safety was evaluated primarily by considering the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) and infection. We deemed short-term follow-up as ≤ 16 weeks and long-term follow-up as > 16 weeks. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for these primary outcomes using six domains of CiNEMA grading.

MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 74 studies, with 8177 randomised participants. Approximately 55% of participants were male, with average age of 32 years (range 2 to 84 years), although age and gender were unreported for 419 and 902 participants, respectively. Most of the included trials were placebo controlled (65%), 34% were head-to-head studies (15% assessed the effects of different doses of the same drug), and 1% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. All trials included participants with moderate to severe eczema, but 62% of studies did not separate data by severity; 38% of studies assessed only severe eczema. The total duration of included trials ranged from 2 weeks to 60 months, whereas treatment duration varied from a single dose (CIM331, KPL-716) to 60 months (methotrexate (MTX)). Seventy studies were available for quantitative synthesis; this review assessed 29 immunosuppressive agents from three classes of interventions. These included (1) conventional treatments, with ciclosporin assessed most commonly; (2) small molecule treatments, including phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors; and (3) biological treatments, including anti-CD31 receptors, anti-interleukin (IL)-22, anti-IL-31, anti-IL-13, anti-IL-12/23p40, anti-OX40, anti-TSLP, anti-CRTH2, and anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibodies, but most commonly dupilumab. Most trials (73) assessed outcomes at a short-term duration ranging from 2 to 16 weeks, whereas 33 trials assessed long-term outcomes, with duration ranging from 5 to 60 months. All participants were from a hospital setting. Fifty-two studies declared a source of funding, and of these, pharmaceutical companies funded 88%. We rated 37 studies as high risk; 21, unclear risk, and 16, low risk of bias, with studies most commonly at high risk of attrition bias. Network meta-analysis suggests that dupilumab ranks first for effectiveness when compared with other biological treatments. Dupilumab is more effective than placebo in achieving EASI75 (risk ratio (RR) 3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51 to 3.69) and improvement in POEM score (mean difference 7.30, 95% CI 6.61 to 8.00) at short-term follow-up (high-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence means we are uncertain of the effects of dupilumab when compared with placebo, in terms of the proportion of participants who achieve EASI75 (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.87 to 3.60) at longer-term follow-up. Low-certainty evidence indicates that tralokinumab may be more effective than placebo in achieving short-term EASI75 (RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.34), but there was no evidence for tralokinumab to allow us to assess short-term follow-up of POEM or long-term follow-up of EASI75. We are uncertain of the effect of ustekinumab compared with placebo in achieving EASI75 (long-term follow-up: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.45; short-term follow-up: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.97; both very low certainty). We found no evidence on ustekinumab for the POEM outcome. We are uncertain whether other immunosuppressive agents that targeted our key outcomes influence the achievement of short-term EASI75 compared with placebo due to low- or very low-certainty evidence. Dupilumab and ustekinumab were the only immunosuppressive agents evaluated for longer-term EASI75. Dupilumab was the only agent evaluated for improvement in POEM during short-term follow-up. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence indicates a lower proportion of participants with SAEs after treatment with QAW039 and dupilumab compared to placebo during short-term follow-up, but low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in SAEs during short-term follow-up of other immunosuppressive agents compared to placebo. Evidence for effects of immunosuppressive agents on risk of any infection during short-term follow-up and SAEs during long-term follow-up compared with placebo was of low or very low certainty but did not indicate a difference. We did not identify differences in other adverse events (AEs), but dupilumab is associated with specific AEs, including eye inflammation and eosinophilia.

METHODS: Two reviewers searched MEDLINE for studies of ≥12 weeks duration in adults with type 2 diabetes. The key search word was "gliclazide", filtered with "randomized controlled trial", "human" and "19+ years". Differences were explored in mean change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline (primary outcome) and risk of hypoglycemia (secondary outcome) between gliclazide and other oral insulinotropic agents; and other sulfonylureas.

RESULTS: Nine out of 181 references reported primary outcomes, of which 7 reported secondary outcomes. Gliclazide lowered HbA1c more than other oral insulinotropic agents, with a weighted mean difference of -0.11% (95%, CI -0.19 to -0.03%, P=0.008, I(2)=60%), though not more than other sulfonylureas (-0.12%; 95%, CI -0.25 to 0.01%, P=0.07, I(2)=77%). Risk of hypoglycemia with gliclazide was not different to other insulinotropic agents (RR 0.85; 95%, CI 0.66 to 1.09, P=0.20, I(2)=61%) but significantly lower than other sulfonylureas (RR 0.47; 95%, CI 0.27 to 0.79, P=0.004, I(2)=0%).

METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and CENTRAL from inception to 30 June 2016 to identify studies investigating the use of early caffeine therapy (initiated at less than 3 days of life) in preterm infants. Effect estimates were combined using random-effects meta-analysis. The primary outcomes for this study were bronchopulmonary dysplasia and mortality.

RESULTS: The initial search found 4066 citations, of which 14 studies enrolling a total of 64 438 participants were included. The time of initiation of early caffeine therapy varied from the first 2 h to 3 days postnatal. Early caffeine therapy reduced the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia in both cohort studies (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.96) and randomized controlled trials (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.81). In cohort studies, neonates treated early with caffeine also showed decreased risks of patent ductus arteriosus, brain injury, retinopathy of prematurity and postnatal steroid use. However, the mortality rate was increased.

METHODS: We conducted an extensive search via Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to acquire the reported RCTs up to October 2020.

RESULTS: The results showed no effects of α-tocopherol supplementation on lipid profile in DM patients except when used ≥12 weeks.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of palivizumab in reducing the incidence of RSV hospitalization in children with CF who are younger than 2 years.

METHODS: Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL) were searched from inception until January 31, 2017, for clinical studies investigating the use of palivizumab in infants with CF aged less than 2 years. The primary outcome was hospitalization rate due to RSV infection. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization for respiratory illness, length of hospital stay, safety (adverse effects), and cost-effectiveness of palivizumab prophylaxis.

RESULTS: The review included a total of 10 studies (six cohort studies, two before-and-after studies, one cross-sectional study, and one randomized controlled trial) involving 3891 patients with CF. Seven studies reported that palivizumab prophylaxis had a positive impact on the rate of RSV hospitalization. Five studies (n=3404) reported that palivizumab prophylaxis significantly reduced the rate of hospitalization due to RSV infection compared to no prophylaxis. One study (n=5) demonstrated patients with CF who received palivizumab had no RSV hospitalization. Another study showed infants with CF receiving palivizumab (n=117) had a lower risk of hospitalization for RSV infection compared with premature infants (gestational age < 35 completed weeks) who received palivizumab (n=4880).

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.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of sweet potato for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched several electronic databases, including The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SIGLE and LILACS (all up to February 2013), combined with handsearches. No language restrictions were used.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared sweet potato with a placebo or a comparator intervention, with or without pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected the trials and extracted the data. We evaluated risk of bias by assessing randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other potential sources of bias.

MAIN RESULTS: Three RCTs met our inclusion criteria: these investigated a total of 140 participants and ranged from six weeks to five months in duration. All three studies were performed by the same trialist. Overall, the risk of bias of these trials was unclear or high. All RCTs compared the effect of sweet potato preparations with placebo on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. There was a statistically significant improvement in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at three to five months with 4 g/day sweet potato preparation compared to placebo (mean difference -0.3% (95% confidence interval -0.6 to -0.04); P = 0.02; 122 participants; 2 trials). No serious adverse effects were reported. Diabetic complications and morbidity, death from any cause, health-related quality of life, well-being, functional outcomes and costs were not investigated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of these 2 treatment modalities were searched from PubMed and other electronic databases between January 1991 and July 2018. The outcome variables analyzed included operating time, complications, recurrence of HH or wrap migration, reoperation, hospital stay and quality of life.

RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials totaling 478 patients (suture=222, mesh=256) were analyzed. For reoperation variable, the odds ratio was significantly 3.26 times higher for the suture group. For recurrence of HH, the odds ratio for the suture group was nonsignificantly 1.65 times higher compared with the mesh group. Comparable effects were noted for all other variables.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS: At least 51 patients with an acute GPP flare will be randomised 2:1 to receive a single 900 mg intravenous dose of spesolimab or placebo and followed for up to 28 weeks. The primary endpoint is a Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment (GPPGA) pustulation subscore of 0 (pustule clearance) at Week 1. The key secondary endpoint is a GPPGA score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear) at Week 1. Safety will be assessed over the study duration by the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events. Blood and skin biopsies will be collected to assess biomarkers. Superiority of spesolimab over placebo in the proportion of patients achieving the primary and key secondary endpoints will be evaluated.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study complies with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Council for Harmonisation's Good Clinical Practice and local regulations. Ethics committee approvals have been obtained for each centre from all participating countries and are listed in online supplementary file 1. Primary results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

METHODS: Patients with primary breast and colorectal cancer undergoing elective surgery are recruited from two tertiary hospitals. Eligible patients are assigned into one of the three intervention arms: (i) Group SS will receive ONS in addition to their normal diet up to 14 days preoperatively and postoperatively up to discharge; (ii) Group SS-E will receive ONS in addition to their normal diet up to 14 days preoperatively, postoperatively up to discharge and for an extended 90 days after discharge; and (iii) Group DS will receive ONS in addition to their normal diet postoperatively up to discharge from the hospital. The ONS is a standard formula fortified with lactium to aid in sleep for recovery. The primary endpoints include changes in weight, body mass index (BMI), serum albumin and prealbumin levels, while secondary endpoints are body composition (muscle and fat mass), muscle strength (handgrip strength), energy and protein intake, sleep quality, haemoglobin, inflammatory markers (transferrin, high sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6), stress marker (saliva cortisol), length of hospital stay and postoperative complication rate.

DISCUSSION: This trial is expected to provide evidence on whether perioperative supplementation in breast and colorectal cancer patients presenting with high BMI and not severely malnourished but undergoing the stress of surgery would be beneficial in terms of nutritional and clinical outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a single-centre double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial. Sixty-eight patients will be randomised to receive under ultrasound guidance either a single injection of leucocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) or normal saline. All patients will undergo a standardised hamstring rehabilitation programme under the supervision of a sports physiotherapist. Outcome data will be collected before intervention (baseline), and thereafter on a weekly basis. The primary outcome measure is the duration to return-to-play. It is defined as the duration (in days) from the date on which the injury occurred until the patients were pain-free, able to perform the active knee extension test and have regained hamstring muscle strength. Secondary outcome measures include assessment of pain intensity and the effect of pain on to day-to-day functions using the self-reported Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form questionnaire. Both the primary and secondary outcomes were assessed at baseline and thereafter once a week until return to play. Also, hamstring injury recurrence within the first 6 months after recovery will be monitored via telephone. The results of this study will provide insights into the effect of LR-PRP in muscle and may help to identify the best PRP application protocol for muscle injuries.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval were obtained from the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University of Malaya Medical Centre. Results of this trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

AIMS: To present consensus opinion from the ASian Clinical Expert group on Neurocognitive Disorders (ASCEND) regarding the role of EGb 761® in MCI.

MATERIALS & METHODS: The ASCEND Group reconvened in September 2019 to present and critically assess the current evidence on the general management of MCI, including the efficacy and safety of EGb 761® as a treatment option.

RESULTS: EGb 761® has demonstrated symptomatic improvement in at least four randomized trials, in terms of cognitive performance, memory, recall and recognition, attention and concentration, anxiety, and NPS. There is also evidence that EGb 761® may help delay progression from MCI to dementia in some individuals.

DISCUSSION: EGb 761® is currently recommended in multiple guidelines for the symptomatic treatment of MCI. Due to its beneficial effects on cerebrovascular blood flow, it is reasonable to expect that EGb 761® may benefit MCI patients with underlying CVD.