METHODS: This review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed and EMBASE were searched up to September 2017 for relevant guidelines. Other databases such as NICE, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and the websites of professional societies were also searched for relevant guidelines. The quality and reporting of included guidelines were assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) instrument.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Six guidelines were eligible for inclusion in our review. Among 6 domains of AGREE-II, "clarity of presentation" scored the highest (80.6%), whereas "applicability" scored the lowest (11.8%). All the guidelines supported the antibiotic de-escalation strategy, whereas the majority of the guidelines (5 of 6) recommended that empirical antibiotic therapy should be implemented in accordance with local microbiological data. All the guidelines suggested that for early-onset HAP/VAP, therapy should start with a narrow spectrum empirical antibiotic such as penicillin or cephalosporins, whereas for late-onset HAP/VAP, the guidelines recommended the use of a broader spectrum empirical antibiotic such as the penicillin extended spectrum carbapenems and glycopeptides.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSIONS: Expert guidelines promote the judicious use of antibiotics and prevent antibiotic overuse. The quality and validity of available HAP/VAP guidelines would be enhanced by improving their adherence to accepted best practice for the management of HAP and VAP.
METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design and convenient sampling, data were collected in public areas within Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, via face-to-face interview with a structured questionnaire. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify the significant predictors of patients' confidence in ADR reporting.
RESULTS: Out of 860 consented respondents achieving a response rate of 73.5%, only 69 (8%) were aware of the Malaysian ADR monitoring system. The majority (60%) of the respondents indicated they had the confidence to report ADRs. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that ease in completing the ADR reporting form was the strongest variable predictive of confidence to report ADRs (odds ratio [OR], 18.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.55-32.25). Increased confidence in ADR reporting was also associated with education level. Respondents with a higher education level were more likely to be confident to report ADRs compared to those with primary or no formal education (OR, 2.49; 95% CI, 0.77-8.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Lack of awareness of the ADR monitoring system is still prevalent among Malaysian patients. The ease of completing the ADR form and education level are predictive of patient confidence to report ADRs. These factors should be considered in designing public promotional activities to encourage patient contributions to pharmacovigilance.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of EMT on the healing of venous leg ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS: For this fourth update, we searched The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 30 January 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 12).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing EMT with sham-EMT or other treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard Cochrane Collaboration methods were employed. At least two review authors independently scrutinised search results and obtained full reports of potentially eligible studies for further assessment. We extracted and summarised details of eligible studies using a data extraction sheet, and made attempts to obtain missing data by contacting study authors. A second review author checked data extraction, and we resolved disagreements after discussion between review authors.
MAIN RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of low or unclear risk of bias, involving 94 people, were included in the original review; subsequent updates have identified no new trials. All the trials compared the use of EMT with sham-EMT. Meta-analysis of these trials was not possible due to heterogeneity. In the two trials that reported healing rates; one small trial (44 participants) reported that significantly more ulcers healed in the EMT group than the sham-EMT group however this result was not robust to different assumptions about the outcomes of participants who were lost to follow up. The second trial that reported numbers of ulcers healed found no significant difference in healing. The third trial was also small (31 participants) and reported significantly greater reductions in ulcer size in the EMT group however this result may have been influenced by differences in the prognostic profiles of the treatment groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear whether electromagnetic therapy influences the rate of healing of venous leg ulcers. Further research would be needed to answer this question.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of EMT on the healing of pressure ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 12 July 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to July Week 1 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, July 11, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to 2012 Week 27); and EBSCO CINAHL (2010 to 6 July 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing EMT with sham EMT or other (standard) treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update two review authors independently scrutinised the results of the search to identify relevant RCTs and obtained full reports of potentially eligible studies. In previous versions of the review we made attempts to obtain missing data by contacting study authors. A second review author checked data extraction and disagreements were resolved after discussion between review authors.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified no new trials for this update.Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving 60 participants, at unclear risk of bias were included in the original review. Both trials compared the use of EMT with sham EMT, although one of the trials included a third arm in which only standard therapy was applied. Neither study found a statistically significant difference in complete healing in people treated with EMT compared with those in the control group. In one trial that assessed percentage reduction in wound surface area, the difference between the two groups was reported to be statistically significant in favour of EMT. However, this result should be interpreted with caution as this is a small study and this finding may be due to chance. Additionally, the outcome, percentage reduction in wound area, is less clinically meaningful than complete healing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results provide no strong evidence of benefit in using EMT to treat pressure ulcers. However, the possibility of a beneficial or harmful effect cannot be ruled out because there were only two included trials, both with methodological limitations and small numbers of participants. Further research is recommended.
METHODS USED TO CONDUCT THE REVIEW: This review was conducted in accordance with the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) recommendation. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Databases and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to March 2017 for relevant trials. The methodological quality of included trials was assessed by using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Case-Control and Cohort Studies. A meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effect model to combine the rate of mortality and length of stay outcomes.
FINDINGS OF THE REVIEW: Nine observational trials involving 2128 patients were considered eligible for inclusion. Although based on low quality evidence, there was a statistically significant difference in favour of the impact of de-escalation on hospital stay but not mortality (MD -5.96 days; 95% CI -8.39 to -3.52).
INTERPRETATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This review highlights the need for more rigorous studies to be carried out before a firm conclusion on the benefit of de-escalation therapy is supported.
METHODS: All ADR associated with the use of CAM products (including health supplements) submitted to the Malaysian Centre for ADR Monitoring, National Pharmaceutical Regulatory Agency over a 15-year period were reviewed and analysed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of serious ADR.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: From a total of 74 997 reports in the database, 930 (1.2%) involved CAM products, and 242 (26%) were serious with 36 deaths. About a third of the reports involved used CAM products for health maintenance. Most (78.1%) of the ADR reports implicated unregistered products with 16.7% confirmed to contain adulterants which were mainly dexamethasone. Of the 930 reports, the ADR involved skin and appendages disorders (18.4%) followed by liver and biliary system disorders (13.7%). The odds of someone experiencing serious ADR increased if the CAM products were used for chronic illnesses (odds ratio [OR] 1.99, confidence interval [CI] 1.46-2.71), having concurrent diseases (OR 1.51, CI 1.04-2.19) and taking concurrent drugs (OR 1.44, CI 1.03-2.02).
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of serious ADR associated with CAM products is high. Factors identified with serious ADR included ethnicity, CAM users with pre-existing diseases, use of CAM for chronic illnesses and concomitant use of CAM products with other drugs. The findings could be useful for planning strategies to institute measures to ensure safe use of CAM products.