OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety of shorter feeding intervals (two hours or shorter) versus longer feeding intervals (three hours or more) and to compare the effects in terms of days taken to regain birth weight and to achieve full feeding.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to run comprehensive searches in CENTRAL (2020, Issue 6) and Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions, and CINAHL on 25 June 2020. We searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing short (e.g. one or two hours) versus long (e.g. three or four hours) feeding intervals in preterm infants of any birth weight, all or most of whom were less than 32 weeks' gestation. Infants could be of any postnatal age at trial entry, but eligible infants should not have received feeds before study entry, with the exception of minimal enteral feeding. We included studies of nasogastric or orogastric bolus feeding, breast milk or formula, in which the feeding interval is the intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were days taken to achieve full enteral feeding and days to regain birth weight. Our other outcomes were duration of hospital stay, episodes of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and growth during hospital stay (weight, length and head circumference).
MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs, involving 417 infants in the review. One study involving 350 infants is awaiting classification. All studies compared two-hourly versus three-hourly feeding interval. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low, but all studies had high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of the intervention. Three studies were included in meta-analysis for the number of days taken to achieve full enteral feeding (351 participants). The mean days to achieve full feeds was between eight and 11 days. There was little or no difference in days taken to achieve full enteral feeding between two-hourly and three-hourly feeding, but this finding was of low certainty (mean difference (MD) ‒0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‒1.60 to 0.36). There was low-certainty evidence that the days taken to regain birth weight may be slightly longer in infants receiving two-hourly feeding than in those receiving three-hourly feeding (MD 1.15, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.20; 3 studies, 350 participants). We are uncertain whether shorter feeding intervals have any effect on any of our secondary outcomes including the duration of hospital stay (MD ‒3.36, 95% CI ‒9.18 to 2.46; 2 studies, 207 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and the risk of NEC (typical risk ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.11; 4 studies, 417 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported growth during hospital stay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The low-certainty evidence we found in this review suggests that there may be no clinically important differences between two- and three-hourly feeding intervals. There is insufficient information about potential feeding complications and in particular NEC. No studies have looked at the effect of other feeding intervals and there is no long-term data on neurodevelopment or growth.
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: 25 June 2015.Date of latest search of all other sources: 10 December 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Any randomised or quasi-randomised control 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 19 papers, describing 13 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 found.
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 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 effectiveness of systematic preconception genetic risk assessment to enable autonomous reproductive choice and to improve reproductive outcomes in women and their partners who are both 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. Date of latest search of the registers: 04 August 2021. 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 all these sources: 25 June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs (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 37 papers, describing 22 unique trials which were potentially eligible for inclusion in the review. However, after assessment, we found no RCTs of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease.
MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease are included. A trial identified earlier has published its results and has subsequently been listed as excluded in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As there are no RCTs of preconception genetic risk assessment for thalassaemia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, or Tay-Sachs disease included in either the earlier or current versions of this review, we recommend considering potential non-RCTs studies (for example prospective cohorts or before-and-after studies) for future reviews. While RCTs are desirable to inform evidence-based practice and robust recommendations, the ethical, legal and social implications associated with using this trial design to evaluate the implementation of preconception genetic risk assessment involving carrier testing and reproductive autonomy must also be considered. In addition, rather than focusing on single gene-by-gene carrier testing for specific autosomal-recessive conditions as the intervention being evaluated, preconception expanded genetic screening should also be included in future searches as this has received much attention in recent years as a more pragmatic strategy. The research evidence for current international policy recommendations is limited to non-randomised studies.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of workplace ergonomic design or training interventions, or both, for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group Database and Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register to July 2010, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre database to November 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic workplace interventions for preventing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs. We included only studies with a baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, of less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the intervention and outcome in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (2397 workers). Eleven studies were conducted in an office environment and two in a healthcare setting. We judged one study to have a low risk of bias. The 13 studies evaluated effectiveness of ergonomic equipment, supplementary breaks or reduced work hours, ergonomic training, a combination of ergonomic training and equipment, and patient lifting interventions for preventing work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck in adults.Overall, there was moderate-quality evidence that arm support with alternative mouse reduced the incidence of neck/shoulder disorders (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99) but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck/shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There was also moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not reduced when comparing alternative mouse and conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), arm support and no arm support with conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.24; right upper limb RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.51 to 2.29), and alternative mouse with arm support and conventional mouse with arm support (neck/shoulder RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.12; right upper limb RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.36).There was low-quality evidence that using an alternative mouse with arm support compared to conventional mouse with arm support reduced neck/shoulder discomfort (SMD -0.39; 95% CI -0.67 to -0.10). There was low- to very low-quality evidence that other interventions were not effective in reducing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the use of arm support with alternative mouse may reduce the incidence of neck/shoulder MSDs, but not right upper limb MSDs. Moreover, we found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb MSDs is not reduced when comparing alternative and conventional mouse with and without arm support. However, given there were multiple comparisons made involving a number of interventions and outcomes, high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions clearly. While we found very-low- to low-quality evidence to suggest that other ergonomic interventions do not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck, this was limited by the paucity and heterogeneity of available studies. This review highlights the need for high-quality RCTs examining the prevention of MSDs of the upper limb and neck.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of physical, cognitive and organisational ergonomic interventions, or combinations of those interventions for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs among office workers.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Embase, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to 10 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic interventions for preventing work-related upper limb or neck MSDs (or both) among office workers. We only included studies where the baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, was less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the interventions and outcomes in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs (2165 workers). We judged one study to have a low risk of bias and the remaining 14 studies to have a high risk of bias due to small numbers of participants and the potential for selection bias.Physical ergonomic interventionsThere is inconsistent evidence for arm supports and alternative computer mouse designs. There is moderate-quality evidence that an arm support with an alternative computer mouse (two studies) reduced the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99), but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck or shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There is moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck or shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not considerably reduced when comparing an alternative computer mouse and a conventional mouse (two studies; neck or shoulder: RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), and also when comparing an arm support with a conventional mouse and a conventional mouse alone (two studies) (neck or shoulder: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 6.98; right upper limb: RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.96).Workstation adjustment (one study) and sit-stand desks (one study) did not have an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort, compared to no intervention.Organisational ergonomic interventionsThere is very low-quality evidence that supplementary breaks (two studies) reduce discomfort of the neck (MD -0.25; 95% CI -0.40 to -0.11), right shoulder or upper arm (MD -0.33; 95% CI -0.46 to -0.19), and right forearm or wrist or hand (MD -0.18; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.08) among data entry workers.Training in ergonomic interventionsThere is low to very low-quality evidence in five studies that participatory and active training interventions may or may not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb or neck or both.Multifaceted ergonomic interventionsFor multifaceted interventions there is one study (very low-quality evidence) that showed no effect on any of the six upper limb pain outcomes measured in that study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found inconsistent evidence that the use of an arm support or an alternative mouse may or may not reduce the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs. For other physical ergonomic interventions there is no evidence of an effect. For organisational interventions, in the form of supplementary breaks, there is very low-quality evidence of an effect on upper limb discomfort. For training and multifaceted interventions there is no evidence of an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions among office workers.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of continuous distending pressure (CDP) on the need for IPPV and associated morbidity in spontaneously breathing preterm infants with respiratory distress.Subgroup analyses were planned on the basis of birth weight (> or < 1000 or 1500 g), gestational age (groups divided at about 28 weeks and 32 weeks), methods of application of CDP (i.e. CPAP and CNP), application early versus late in the course of respiratory distress and high versus low pressure CDP and application of CDP in tertiary compared with non-tertiary hospitals, with the need for sensitivity analysis determined by trial quality.At the 2008 update, the objectives were modified to include preterm infants with respiratory failure.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2015 Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 April 2015) and EMBASE (1980 to 30 April 2015) with no language restriction, as well as controlled-trials.com, clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the World Health Organization (WHO).
SELECTION CRITERIA: All random or quasi-random trials of preterm infants with respiratory distress were eligible. Interventions were continuous distending pressure including continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) by mask, nasal prong, nasopharyngeal tube or endotracheal tube, or continuous negative pressure (CNP) via a chamber enclosing the thorax and the lower body, compared with spontaneous breathing with oxygen added as necessary.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Review Group, including independent assessment of trial quality and extraction of data by each review author.
MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies involving 355 infants - two using face mask CPAP, two CNP, one nasal CPAP and one both CNP (for less ill babies) and endotracheal CPAP (for sicker babies). For this update, we included no new trials.Continuous distending pressure (CDP) is associated with lower risk of treatment failure (death or use of assisted ventilation) (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.81; typical risk difference (RD) -0.20, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.10; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5, 95% CI 4 to 10; six studies; 355 infants), lower overall mortality (typical RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87; typical RD -0.15, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.04; NNTB 7, 95% CI 4 to 25; six studies; 355 infants) and lower mortality in infants with birth weight above 1500 g (typical RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.84; typical RD -0.28, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.08; NNTB 4, 95% CI 2.00 to 13.00; two studies; 60 infants). Use of CDP is associated with increased risk of pneumothorax (typical RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.39 to 5.04; typical RD 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.17; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 17, 95% CI 17.00 to 25.00; six studies; 355 infants). We found no difference in bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), defined as oxygen dependency at 28 days (three studies, 260 infants), as well as no difference in outcome at nine to 14 years (one study, 37 infants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In preterm infants with respiratory distress, the application of CDP as CPAP or CNP is associated with reduced respiratory failure and mortality and an increased rate of pneumothorax. Four out of six of these trials were done in the 1970s. Therefore, the applicability of these results to current practice is difficult to assess. Further research is required to determine the best mode of administration.
OBJECTIVES: In spontaneously breathing preterm infants with RDS, to determine if continuous distending pressure (CDP) reduces the need for IPPV and associated morbidity without adverse effects.
SEARCH STRATEGY: The standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review group was used. This included searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2002), MEDLINE (1966-January 2002), and EMBASE (1980-January 2002), previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conference and symposia proceedings, expert informants, journal hand searching mainly in the English language.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All trials using random or quasi-random allocation of preterm infants with RDS were eligible. Interventions were continuous distending pressure including continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) by mask, nasal prong, nasopharyngeal tube, or endotracheal tube, or continuous negative pressure (CNP) via a chamber enclosing the thorax and lower body, compared with standard care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Review Group were used, including independent assessment of trial quality and extraction of data by each author.
MAIN RESULTS: CDP is associated with a lower rate of failed treatment (death or use of assisted ventilation) [summary RR 0.70 (0.55, 0.88), RD -0.22 (-0.35, -0.09), NNT 5 (3, 11)], overall mortality [summary RR 0.52 (0.32, 0.87), RD -0.15 (-0.26, -0.04), NNT 7 (4, 25)], and mortality in infants with birthweights above 1500 g [summary RR 0.24 (0.07, 0.84), RD -0.281 (-0.483, -0.078), NNT 4 (2, 13)]. The use of CDP is associated with an increased rate of pneumothorax [summary RR 2.36 (1.25, 5.54), RD 0.14 (0.04, 0.23), NNH 7 (4, 24)].
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In preterm infants with RDS the application of CDP either as CPAP or CNP is associated with benefits in terms of reduced respiratory failure and reduced mortality. CDP is associated with an increased rate of pneumothorax. The applicability of these results to current practice is difficult to assess, given the intensive care setting of the 1970s when four out of five of these trials were done. Where resources are limited, such as in developing countries, CPAP for RDS may have a clinical role. Further research is required to determine the best mode of administration and its role in modern intensive care settings
OBJECTIVES: In spontaneously breathing preterm infants with RDS, to determine if continuous distending pressure (CDP) reduces the need for IPPV and associated morbidity without adverse effects.
SEARCH STRATEGY: The standard search strategy of the Neonatal Review group was used. This included searches of the Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE (1966-Jan. 2000), previous reviews including cross references, abstracts, conference and symposia proceedings, expert informants, journal hand searching mainly in the English language.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All trials using random or quasi-random patient allocation of newborn infants with RDS were eligible. Interventions were continuous distending pressure including continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) by mask, nasal prong, nasopharyngeal tube, or endotracheal tube, or continuous negative pressure (CNP) via a chamber enclosing the thorax and lower body, compared with standard care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration and its Neonatal Review Group, including independent assessment of trial quality and extraction of data by each author, were used.
MAIN RESULTS: CDP is associated with a lower rate of failed treatment (death or use of assisted ventilation), overall mortality, and mortality in infants with birthweights above 1500 g. The use of CDP is associated with an increased rate of pneumothorax.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In preterm infants with RDS the application of CDP either as CPAP or CNP is associated with some benefits in terms of reduced respiratory failure and reduced mortality. CDP is associated with an increased rate of pneumothorax. The applicability of these results to current practice is difficult to assess, given the outdated methods to administer CDP, low use of antenatal corticosteroids, non-availability of surfactant and the intensive care setting of the 1970s when these trials were done. Where resources are limited, such as in developing countries, CPAP for RDS may have a clinical role. Further research is required to determine the best mode of administration and its role in modern intensive care settings
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of continuous distending pressure in the form of CPAP on the need for IPPV and associated morbidity in spontaneously breathing preterm infants with respiratory distress.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions; and CINAHL on 30 June 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of preterm infants with respiratory distress were eligible. Interventions were CPAP by mask, nasal prong, nasopharyngeal tube or endotracheal tube, compared with spontaneous breathing with supplemental oxygen as necessary.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods of Cochrane and its Neonatal Review Group, including independent assessment of risk of bias and extraction of data by two review authors. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Subgroup analyses were planned on the basis of birth weight (greater than or less than 1000 g or 1500 g), gestational age (groups divided at about 28 weeks and 32 weeks), timing of application (early versus late in the course of respiratory distress), pressure applied (high versus low) and trial setting (tertiary compared with non-tertiary hospitals; high income compared with low income) MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies involving 322 infants; two studies used face mask CPAP, two studies used nasal CPAP and one study used endotracheal CPAP and continuing negative pressure for a small number of less ill babies. For this update, we included one new trial. CPAP was associated with lower risk of treatment failure (death or use of assisted ventilation) (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.82; typical risk difference (RD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6, 95% CI 4 to 11; I2 = 50%; 5 studies, 322 infants; very low-certainty evidence), lower use of ventilatory assistance (typical RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96; typical RD -0.13, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.02; NNTB 8, 95% CI 4 to 50; I2 = 55%; very low-certainty evidence) and lower overall mortality (typical RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.83; typical RD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.04; NNTB 9, 95% CI 2 to 13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 322 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). CPAP was associated with increased risk of pneumothorax (typical RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.30; typical RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.16; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 11, 95% CI 7 to 50; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 274 infants; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in bronchopulmonary dysplasia, defined as oxygen dependency at 28 days (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 209 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report use of surfactant, intraventricular haemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity, necrotising enterocolitis and neurodevelopment outcomes in childhood.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In preterm infants with respiratory distress, the application of CPAP is associated with reduced respiratory failure, use of mechanical ventilation and mortality and an increased rate of pneumothorax compared to spontaneous breathing with supplemental oxygen as necessary. Three out of five of these trials were conducted in the 1970s. Therefore, the applicability of these results to current practice is unclear. Further studies in resource-poor settings should be considered and research to determine the most appropriate pressure level needs to be considered.
OBJECTIVES: • To determine if early compared with delayed initiation of CPAP results in lower mortality and reduced need for intermittent positive-pressure ventilation in preterm infants in respiratory distress ○ Subgroup analyses were planned a priori on the basis of weight (with subdivisions at 1000 grams and 1500 grams), gestation (with subdivisions at 28 and 32 weeks), and according to whether surfactant was used ▫ Sensitivity analyses based on trial quality were also planned ○ For this update, we have excluded trials using continuous negative pressure SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 6), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations Daily and Versions(R); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literatue (CINAHL), on 30 June 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials that used random or quasi-random allocation to either early or delayed CPAP for spontaneously breathing preterm infants in respiratory distress.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal, including independent assessment of trial quality and extraction of data by two review authors. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We found four studies that recruited a total of 119 infants. Two were quasi-randomised, and the other two did not provide details on the method of randomisation or allocation used. None of these studies used blinding of the intervention or the outcome assessor. Evidence showed uncertainty about whether early CPAP has an effect on subsequent use of intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (IPPV) (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.38; typical risk difference (RD) -0.08, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.08; I² = 0%, 4 studies, 119 infants; very low-certainty evidence) or mortality (typical RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.03; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12; I² = 33%, 4 studies, 119 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The outcome 'failed treatment' was not reported in any of these studies. There was an uncertain effect on air leak (pneumothorax) (typical RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.04, I² = 0%, 3 studies, 98 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported intraventricular haemorrhage or necrotising enterocolitis. No cases of retinopathy of prematurity were reported in one study (21 infants). One case of bronchopulmonary dysplasia was reported in each group in one study involving 29 infants. Long-term outcomes were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All four small trials included in this review were performed in the 1970s or the early 1980s, and we are very uncertain whether early application of CPAP confers clinical benefit in the treatment of respiratory distress, or whether it is associated with any adverse effects. Further trials should be directed towards establishing the appropriate level of CPAP and the timing and method of administration of surfactant when used along with CPAP.
OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to examine the benefits and harms of human albumin infusion for treating oedema associated with nephrotic syndrome.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 23 June 2019 through contact with the Information Specialists using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effect of human albumin infusion compared with placebo or no intervention, human albumin with diuretics compared with diuretic alone, human albumin compared with diuretics and other treatments, clinical outcomes, death, quality of life, kidney function and adverse effects in people with nephrotic syndrome. We excluded cross-over studies but data for the first period was to be included if available.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard methods of the Cochrane Collaboration were used. Two authors independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias, study quality and extracted data. We calculated mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: One study met our inclusion criteria (26 children with minimal change nephrotic syndrome) and 11 were excluded (nine cross-over studies, one where albumin was not used for nephrotic syndrome and one where authors did not state whether the children had oedema). Risk of bias for the included study was unclear for selection bias, high for performance and detection bias, low for attrition bias, and high for selective reporting. The included study compared albumin plus furosemide with an equal volume of dextrose. Of our prespecified outcomes, the authors reported clinical improvement as weight change, serum sodium and adverse outcomes (blood pressure). The authors reported a greater weight loss in the albumin treated group initially but no difference overall at 10 days. However, the data in the text and the figures were inconsistent so we could not confirm the authors statements (very low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether albumin infusion improves serum sodium when compared with an equal volume of dextrose (MD 2.00 mEq/L, 95% CI -0.09 to 4.09), systolic blood pressure (MD 2.00 mmHg, 95% CI -3.52 to 7.52) or diastolic blood pressure (MD 2.00 mmHg, 95%CI -4.29 to 8.29). Death, quality of life, and kidney function were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified only one small study that was relevant to our review, therefore we are unable to draw any conclusions regarding the use of human albumin with or without diuretics in nephrotic syndrome. More RCTs are needed.
OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the effects of CPAP on AoP in preterm infants (this may be compared to supportive care or mechanical ventilation). 2. To assess the effects of different CPAP delivery systems on AoP in preterm infants.
SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted in September 2022 in the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial registries and the reference lists of studies selected for inclusion.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which researchers determined that CPAP was necessary for AoP in preterm infants (born before 37 weeks). Cross-over studies were also included, provided sufficient data were available for analysis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal, including independent assessment of risk of bias and extraction of data by at least two review authors. Discrepancies were resolved by involvement of a third author. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: 1) failed CPAP; 2) apnoea; 3) adverse effects of CPAP.
MAIN RESULTS: We included four single-centre trials conducted in Malaysia, Spain, Germany, and North America, involving 138 infants with a mean/median gestation of 26 to 28 weeks. Two studies were parallel-group RCTs and two were cross-over trials. None of the studies compared CPAP with supportive care. All trials compared one form of CPAP with another. Two compared a variable flow device with ventilator CPAP, one compared two different variable flow devices, and one compared a variable flow device with bubble CPAP. Interventions were administered for periods ranging between six and 48 hours, with pressures between 4 and 6 cm H2O. We assessed all trials as having a high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel, and two studies for blinding of outcome assessors. We found a high risk of a carry-over effect in two studies where the washout period was not adequately described, and a high risk of bias in a study that appeared to use an analysis method not generally accepted for cross-over studies. Comparison 1. CPAP and supportive care compared to supportive care alone We did not identify any study for inclusion in this comparison. Comparison 2. CPAP delivered by different types of devices 2a. Variable flow compared to ventilator CPAP Two studies were included in this comparison. We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP, defined as the need for mechanical ventilation (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.90; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the frequency of apnoea events (mean difference (MD) per four-hour interval -0.10, 95% CI -1.30 to 1.10; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are uncertain whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported. 2b. Variable flow compared to bubble CPAP We included one study in this comparison, but it did not report our pre-specified outcomes. 2c. Infant Flow variable flow CPAP compared to Medijet variable flow CPAP We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.53; 1 study, 80 participants; very low-certainty). The frequency of apnoea was not reported, and we do not know whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported. Comparison 3. CPAP compared to mechanical ventilation We did not identify any studies for inclusion in this comparison.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited available evidence, we are very uncertain whether any CPAP device is more effective than other forms of supportive care, other CPAP devices, or mechanical ventilation for the prevention and treatment of AoP. The devices used in these studies included two types of variable flow CPAP device: bubble CPAP and ventilator CPAP. For each comparison, data were only available from a single study. There are theoretical reasons why these devices might have different effects on AoP, therefore further trials are indicated.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness, safety and appropriate dose regimen of hydroxyurea in people with non-transfusion dependent beta thalassaemia (haemoglobin E combined with beta thalassaemia and beta thalassaemia intermedia).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of relevant journals. We also searched ongoing trials registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of last search: 30 April 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of hydroxyurea in people with non-transfusion dependent beta thalassaemia comparing hydroxyurea with placebo or standard treatment or comparing different doses of hydroxyurea.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently applied the inclusion criteria in order to select trials for inclusion. Both authors assessed the risk of bias of trials and extracted the data. A third author verified these assessments.
MAIN RESULTS: No trials comparing hydroxyurea with placebo or standard care were found. However, we included one randomised controlled trial (n = 61) comparing 20 mg/kg/day with 10 mg/kg/day of hydroxyurea for 24 weeks.Both haemoglobin and foetal haemoglobin levels were lower at 24 weeks in the 20 mg group compared with the 10 mg group, mean difference -2.39 (95% confidence interval - 2.8 to -1.98) and mean difference -1.5 (95% confidence interval -1.83 to -1.17), respectively. Major adverse effects were significantly more common in the 20 mg group, for neutropenia risk ratio 9.93 (95% confidence interval 1.34 to 73.97) and for thrombocytopenia risk ratio 3.68 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 12.07). No difference was reported for minor adverse effects (gastrointestinal disturbances and raised liver enzymes). The effect of hydroxyurea on transfusion frequency was not reported.The overall quality for the outcomes reported was graded as very low mainly because the outcomes were derived from only one small study with an unclear method of allocation concealment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to show whether hydroxyurea has any effect compared with controls on the need for blood transfusion. Administration of 10 mg/kg/day compared to 20 mg/kg/day of hydroxyurea resulted in higher haemoglobin levels and seems safer with fewer adverse effects. It has not been reported whether hydroxyurea is capable of reducing the need for blood transfusion. Large well-designed randomised controlled trials with sufficient duration of follow up are recommended.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of the following for reducing blood transfusion for people with NTDβT: 1. HbF inducers versus usual care or placebo; 2. single HbF inducer with another HbF inducer, and single dose with another dose; and 3. combination of HbF inducers versus usual care or placebo, or single HbF inducer.
SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 21 August 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing single HbF inducer with placebo or usual care, with another single HbF inducer or with a combination of HbF inducers; or comparing different doses of the same HbF inducer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were blood transfusion and haemoglobin levels. Our secondary outcomes were HbF levels, the long-term sequelae of NTDβT, quality of life and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs involving 291 people with NTDβT, aged two to 49 years, from five countries. We reported 10 comparisons using eight different HbF inducers (four pharmacological and four natural): three RCTs compared a single HbF inducer to placebo and seven to another HbF inducer. The duration of the intervention lasted from 56 days to six months. Most studies did not adequately report the randomisation procedures or whether and how blinding was achieved. HbF inducer against placebo or usual care Three HbF inducers, HQK-1001, Radix Astragali or a 3-in-1 combined natural preparation (CNP), were compared with a placebo. None of the comparisons reported the frequency of blood transfusion. We are uncertain whether Radix Astragali and CNP increase haemoglobin at three months (mean difference (MD) 1.33 g/dL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 2.11; 1 study, 2 interventions, 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether Radix Astragali and CNP have any effect on HbF (MD 12%, 95% CI -0.74% to 24.75%; 1 study, 2 interventions, 35 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Only medians on haemoglobin and HbF levels were reported for HQK-1001. Adverse effects reported for HQK-1001 were nausea, vomiting, dizziness and suprapubic pain. There were no prespecified adverse effects for Radix Astragali and CNP. HbF inducer versus another HbF inducer Four studies compared a single inducer with another over three to six months. Comparisons included hydroxyurea versus resveratrol, hydroxyurea versus thalidomide, hydroxyurea versus decitabine and Radix Astragali versus CNP. No study reported our prespecified outcomes on blood transfusion. Haemoglobin and HbF were reported for the comparison Radix Astragali versus CNP, but we are uncertain whether there were any differences (1 study, 24 participants; low-certainty evidence). Different doses of the same HbF inducer Two studies compared two different types of HbF inducers at different doses over two to six months. Comparisons included hydroxyurea 20 mg/kg/day versus 10 mg/kg/day and HQK-1001 10 mg/kg/day, 20 mg/kg/day, 30 mg/kg/day and 40 mg/kg/day. Blood transfusion, as prespecified, was not reported. In one study (61 participants) we are uncertain whether the lower levels of both haemoglobin and HbF at 24 weeks were due to the higher dose of hydroxyurea (haemoglobin: MD -2.39 g/dL, 95% CI -2.80 to -1.98; very low-certainty evidence; HbF: MD -10.20%, 95% CI -16.28% to -4.12%; very low-certainty evidence). The study of the four different doses of HQK-1001 did not report results for either haemoglobin or HbF. We are not certain if major adverse effects may be more common with higher hydroxyurea doses (neutropenia: risk ratio (RR) 9.93, 95% CI 1.34 to 73.97; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.12 to 12.07; very low-certainty evidence). Taking HQK-1001 20 mg/kg/day may result in the fewest adverse effects. A combination of HbF inducers versus a single HbF inducer Two studies compared three combinations of two inducers with a single inducer over six months: hydroxyurea plus resveratrol versus resveratrol or hydroxyurea alone, and hydroxyurea plus l-carnitine versus hydroxyurea alone. Blood transfusion was not reported. Hydroxyurea plus resveratrol may reduce haemoglobin compared with either resveratrol or hydroxyurea alone (MD -0.74 g/dL, 95% CI -1.45 to -0.03; 1 study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are not certain whether the gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and malaise more commonly reported with hydroxyurea plus resveratrol than resveratrol alone were due to the interventions. We are uncertain whether hydroxyurea plus l-carnitine compared with hydroxyurea alone may increase mean haemoglobin, and reduce pulmonary hypertension (1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were reported but not in the intervention group. None of the comparisons reported the outcome of HbF.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether any of the eight HbF inducers in this review have a beneficial effect on people with NTDβT. For each of these HbF inducers, we found only one or at the most two small studies. There is no information on whether any of these HbF inducers have an effect on our primary outcome, blood transfusion. For the second primary outcome, haemoglobin, there may be small differences between intervention groups, but these may not be clinically meaningful and are of low- to very low-certainty evidence. Data on adverse effects and optimal doses are limited. Five studies are awaiting classification, but none are ongoing.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of oral galactagogues for increasing milk production in non-hospitalised breastfeeding mother-term infant pairs.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Health Research and Development Network - Phillippines (HERDIN), Natural Products Alert (Napralert), the personal reference collection of author LM, and reference lists of retrieved studies (4 November 2019).
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (including published abstracts) comparing oral galactagogues with placebo, no treatment, or another oral galactagogue in mothers breastfeeding healthy term infants. We also included cluster-randomised trials but excluded cross-over trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth methods for data collection and analysis. Two to four review authors independently selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data for analysis and checked accuracy. Where necessary, we contacted the study authors for clarification.
MAIN RESULTS: Forty-one RCTs involving 3005 mothers and 3006 infants from at least 17 countries met the inclusion criteria. Studies were conducted either in hospitals immediately postpartum or in the community. There was considerable variation in mothers, particularly in parity and whether or not they had lactation insufficiency. Infants' ages at commencement of the studies ranged from newborn to 6 months. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low because of high risk of biases (mainly due to lack of blinding), substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity, and imprecision of measurements. Pharmacological galactagogues Nine studies compared a pharmacological galactagogue (domperidone, metoclopramide, sulpiride, thyrotropin-releasing hormone) with placebo or no treatment. The primary outcome of proportion of mothers who continued breastfeeding at 3, 4 and 6 months was not reported. Only one study (metoclopramide) reported on the outcome of infant weight, finding little or no difference (mean difference (MD) 23.0 grams, 95% confidence interval (CI) -47.71 to 93.71; 1 study, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three studies (metoclopramide, domperidone, sulpiride) reported on milk volume, finding pharmacological galactagogues may increase milk volume (MD 63.82 mL, 95% CI 25.91 to 101.72; I² = 34%; 3 studies, 151 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis indicates there may be increased milk volume with each drug, but with varying CIs. There was limited reporting of adverse effects, none of which could be meta-analysed. Where reported, they were limited to minor complaints, such as tiredness, nausea, headache and dry mouth (very low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported for infants. Natural galactagogues Twenty-seven studies compared natural oral galactagogues (banana flower, fennel, fenugreek, ginger, ixbut, levant cotton, moringa, palm dates, pork knuckle, shatavari, silymarin, torbangun leaves or other natural mixtures) with placebo or no treatment. One study (Mother's Milk Tea) reported breastfeeding rates at six months with a concluding statement of "no significant difference" (no data and no measure of significance provided, 60 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Three studies (fennel, fenugreek, moringa, mixed botanical tea) reported infant weight but could not be meta-analysed due to substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 60%, 275 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis shows we are very uncertain whether fennel or fenugreek improves infant weight, whereas moringa and mixed botanical tea may increase infant weight compared to placebo. Thirteen studies (Bu Xue Sheng Ru, Chanbao, Cui Ru, banana flower, fenugreek, ginger, moringa, fenugreek, ginger and turmeric mix, ixbut, mixed botanical tea, Sheng Ru He Ji, silymarin, Xian Tong Ru, palm dates; 962 participants) reported on milk volume, but meta-analysis was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). The subgroup analysis for each intervention suggested either benefit or little or no difference (very low-certainty evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse effects, none of which could be meta-analysed. Where reported, they were limited to minor complaints such as mothers with urine that smelled like maple syrup and urticaria in infants (very low-certainty evidence). Galactagogue versus galactagogue Eight studies (Chanbao; Bue Xue Sheng Ru, domperidone, moringa, fenugreek, palm dates, torbangun, moloco, Mu Er Wu You, Kun Yuan Tong Ru) compared one oral galactagogue with another. We were unable to perform meta-analysis because there was only one small study for each match-up, so we do not know if one galactagogue is better than another for any outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to extremely limited, very low certainty evidence, we do not know whether galactagogues have any effect on proportion of mothers who continued breastfeeding at 3, 4 and 6 months. There is low-certainty evidence that pharmacological galactagogues may increase milk volume. There is some evidence from subgroup analyses that natural galactagogues may benefit infant weight and milk volume in mothers with healthy, term infants, but due to substantial heterogeneity of the studies, imprecision of measurements and incomplete reporting, we are very uncertain about the magnitude of the effect. We are also uncertain if one galactagogue performs better than another. With limited data on adverse effects, we are uncertain if there are any concerning adverse effects with any particular galactagogue; those reported were minor complaints. High-quality RCTs on the efficacy and safety of galactagogues are urgently needed. A set of core outcomes to standardise infant weight and milk volume measurement is also needed, as well as a strong basis for the dose and dosage form used.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 14 May 2020, with no language restrictions: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 May 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated studies identified by the search for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies with a total of 2922 children. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 16 studies were at high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in small studies. Fewer children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). More children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure after one dose compared to intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear difference after two doses (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Children with oral chloral hydrate had more sedation failure compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.96; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and music therapy (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedation failure rates were similar between groups for comparisons with oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, oral midazolam and oral clonidine. Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to adequate sedation compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for three aforementioned outcomes), rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study), and oral clonidine (MD -37.48, 95% CI -55.97 to -18.99; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for two aforementioned outcomes). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 2.80, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.83; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared significantly less likely to complete neurodiagnostic procedure with child awakening when compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of the following adverse events: desaturation versus rectal sodium thiopental (RR 5.00, 95% 0.24 to 102.30; 1 study), unsteadiness versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 178.52; 1 study), vomiting versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.59, 95% CI 0.61 to 185.45; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for aforementioned three outcomes), and crying during administration of sedation versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a lower risk of the following: diarrhoea compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.72; 1 study), lower mean diastolic blood pressure compared with sodium thiopental (MD 7.40, 95% CI 5.11 to 9.69; 1 study), drowsiness compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64; 1 study), vertigo compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for aforementioned four outcomes), and bradycardia compared with intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate, although there was an increased risk of combined adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine. Sedation failure was similar between groups for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. Oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate when compared with intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, and music therapy. Chloral hydrate appeared to be associated with higher rates of adverse events than intranasal dexmedetomidine. However, the evidence for the outcomes for oral chloral hydrate versus intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, intranasal dexmedetomidine, and music therapy was mostly of low certainty, therefore the findings should be interpreted with caution. Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for an additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially for major adverse effects such as oxygen desaturation.