AIMS: This study was done to find out the most suitable anaesthesia for patients with fewer complications and also to look at the trend of anaesthesia being used.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis was done of patients who underwent cataract surgery from 2007 to 2014 in Hospital Melaka. Data were obtained from the National Eye Database and analysed using SPSS. Trend of types of anaesthesia used and the associated complications with each were studied.

RESULTS: The most frequently used anaesthesia was topical anaesthesia, which showed an upward trend followed by subtenon in turn showing a downward trend. Subtenon anaesthesia was associated with more intraoperative and postoperative complications while topical anaesthesia was associated with fewer complications.

METHODS: Full and partial economic evaluations, published in English, associated with the management of neonatal systemic infections in South Asia will be included. Any intervention related to management of neonatal systemic infections will be eligible for inclusion. Comparison can include a placebo or alternative standard of care. Interventions without any comparators will also be eligible for inclusion. Outcomes of this review will include measures related to resource use, costs and cost-effectiveness. Electronic searches will be conducted on PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, EconLit, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Library (CRD) Database, Popline, IndMed, MedKnow, IMSEAR, the Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry and Pediatric Economic Database Evaluation (PEDE). Conference proceedings and grey literature will be searched in addition to performing back referencing of bibliographies of included studies. Two authors will independently screen studies (in title, abstract and full-text stages), extract data and assess risk of bias. A narrative summary and tables will be used to summarize the characteristics and results of included studies.

DISCUSSION: Neonatal systemic infections can have significant economic repercussions on the families, health care providers and, cumulatively, the nation. Pediatric economic evaluations have focused on the under-five age group, and published consolidated economic evidence for neonates is missing in the developing world context. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review of economic evidence on neonatal systemic infections in the South Asian context. Further, this protocol provides an underst anding of the methods used to design and evaluate economic evidence for methodological quality, transparency and focus on health equity. This review will also highlight existing gaps in research and identify scope for further research.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of TENS for managing pain in people with SCD who experience pain crises or chronic pain (or both).

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Register, comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched online trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of the last search: 26 Febraury 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, where TENS was evaluated for managing pain in people with SCD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the trials identified by the literature searches according to the inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE guidelines.

MAIN RESULTS: One double-blind cross-over RCT with 22 participants with SCD (aged 12 to 27 years) was eligible for inclusion. Following stratification into four pain crises severity grades, participants were then randomised to receive TENS or placebo (sham TENS). The trial was concluded after 60 treatment episodes (30 treatment episodes of each treatment group). There is a lack of clarity regarding the trial design and the analysis of the cross-over data. If a participant was allocated to TENS treatment for an episode of pain and subsequently returned with a further episode of a similar degree of pain, they would then receive the sham TENS treatment (cross-over design). For those experiencing a pain episode of a different severity, it is not clear whether they were re-randomised or given the alternate treatment. Reporting and analysis was based on the total number pain events and not on the number of participants. It is unclear how many participants were crossed over from the TENS group to the sham TENS group and vice versa. The trial had a high risk of bias regarding random sequence generation and allocation concealment; an unclear risk regarding the blinding of participants and personnel; and a low risk regarding the blinding of the outcome assessors and selective outcome reporting. The trial was small and of very low quality; furthermore, given the issue with trial design we were unable to quantitatively analyse the data. Therefore, we present only a narrative summary and caution is advised in interpreting the results. In relation to our pre-defined primary outcomes, the included trial did not report pain relief at two to four weeks post intervention. The trial authors reported that no difference was found in the changes in pain ratings (recorded at one hour and four hours post intervention) between the TENS and the placebo groups. In relation to our secondary outcomes, the analgesic usage during the trial also did not show any difference between groups. Given the quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether TENS improves overall satisfaction as compared to sham TENS. The ability to cope with activities of daily living was not evaluated. Regarding adverse events, although one case of itching was reported in the TENS group, the site and nature of itching was not clearly stated; hence it cannot be clearly attributed to TENS. Also, two participants receiving 'sham' TENS reported a worsening of pain with the intervention.

METHODS: Eight scientific databases were searched. Two independent reviewers screened the literature in title and abstract stages, followed by full-text appraisal, data extraction, and synthesis of eligible studies. Studies were extracted to capture details of the mhealth tools used, the service issues addressed, the study design, and the outcomes evaluated. We then mapped the included studies using the 20 sub-strategies of the WHO Framework on Integrated People-Centred Health Services (IPCHS); as well as with the RE-AIM (Reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance) framework, to understand how studies implemented and evaluated interventions.

RESULTS: We identified 39 studies, predominantly from Australia (n = 16), China (n = 7), Malaysia (n = 4) and New Zealand (n = 4), and little from low income countries. The mHealth modalities included text messaging, voice and video communication, mobile applications and devices (point-of-care, GPS, and Bluetooth). Health issues addressed included: medication adherence, smoking cessation, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, asthma, diabetes, and lifestyle activities respectively. Almost all were community-based and focused on service issues; only half were disease-specific. mHealth facilitated integrated IPCHS by: enabling citizens and communities to bypass gatekeepers and directly access services; increasing affordability and accessibility of services; strengthening governance over the access, use, safety and quality of clinical care; enabling scheduling and navigation of services; transitioning patients and caregivers between care sectors; and enabling the evaluation of safety and quality outcomes for systemic improvement. Evaluations of mHealth interventions did not always report the underlying theories. They predominantly reported cognitive/behavioural changes rather than patient outcomes. The utility of mHealth to support and improve IPCHS was evident. However, IPCHS strategy 2 (participatory governance and accountability) was addressed least frequently. Implementation was evaluated in regard to reach (n = 30), effectiveness (n = 24); adoption (n = 5), implementation (n = 9), and maintenance (n = 1).