OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in reducing the occurrence of acute otitis media (AOM) in infants and children.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to July week 1, 2014), EMBASE (2010 to July 2014), CINAHL (1981 to July 2014), LILACS (1982 to July 2014), Web of Science (1955 to July 2014) and reference lists of articles to July 2014.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing influenza vaccine with placebo or no treatment in infants and children aged younger than six years old. We included children of either sex and of any ethnicity, with or without a history of recurrent AOM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. We performed statistical analyses using the random-effects and fixed-effect models and expressed the results as risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials (six trials in high-income countries and four multicentre trials in high-, middle- and low-income countries) involving 16,707 children aged six months to six years. Eight trials recruited participants from a healthcare setting. Nine trials (and all five trials that contributed to the primary outcome) declared funding from vaccine manufacturers. Four trials reported adequate allocation concealment and nine trials reported adequate blinding of participants and personnel. Attrition was low for all trials included in the analysis.The primary outcome showed a small reduction in at least one episode of AOM over at least six months of follow-up (five trials, 4736 participants: RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; NNTB 25, 95% CI 15 to 50).The subgroup analyses (i.e. number of courses, settings, seasons or types of vaccine administered) showed no differences.There was a reduction in the use of antibiotics in vaccinated children (two trials, 1223 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.83; RD -0.15, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.00).There was no significant difference in the utilisation of health care for the one trial that provided sufficient information to be included. The use of influenza vaccine resulted in a significant increase in fever (six trials, 10,199 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.24; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.05) and rhinorrhoea (six trials, 10,563 children: RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.29; RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.16) but no difference in pharyngitis. No major adverse events were reported.Compared to the protocol, the review included a subgroup analysis of AOM episodes by season, and changed the types of influenza vaccine from a secondary outcome to a subgroup analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccine results in a small reduction in AOM. The observed reduction with the use of antibiotics needs to be considered in the light of current recommended practices aimed at avoiding antibiotic overuse. Safety data from these trials are limited. The benefits may not justify the use of influenza vaccine without taking into account the vaccine efficacy in reducing influenza and safety data. The quality of the evidence was high to moderate. Additional research is needed.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for the management of patients with taste disturbances.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 5 March 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE via OVID (1948 to 5 March 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 March 2014), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 5 March 2014) and AMED via OVID (1985 to 5 March 2014). We also searched the relevant clinical trial registries and conference proceedings from the International Association of Dental Research/American Association of Dental Research (to 5 March 2014), Association for Research in Otolaryngology (to 5 March 2014), the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (to 5 March 2014), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (to 5 March 2014), World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (to 5 March 2014) and International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) Clinical Trials Portal (to 5 March 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological agent with a control intervention or any non-pharmacological agent with a control intervention. We also included cross-over trials in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently, and in duplicate, assessed the quality of trials and extracted data. Wherever possible, we contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse events information from the trials.
MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials (seven parallel and two cross-over RCTs) with 566 participants. We assessed three trials (33.3%) as having a low risk of bias, four trials (44.5%) at high risk of bias and two trials (22.2%) as having an unclear risk of bias. We only included studies on taste disorders in this review that were either idiopathic, or resulting from zinc deficiency or chronic renal failure.Of these, eight trials with 529 people compared zinc supplements to placebo for patients with taste disorders. The participants in two trials were children and adolescents with respective mean ages of 10 and 11.2 years and the other six trials had adult participants. Out of these eight, two trials assessed the patient reported outcome for improvement in taste acuity using zinc supplements (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.1; very low quality evidence). We included three trials in the meta-analysis for overall taste improvement (effect size 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.65; moderate quality evidence). Two other trials described the results as taste acuity improvement and we conducted subgroup analyses due to clinical heterogeneity. One trial described the results as taste recognition improvement for each taste sensation and we analysed this separately. We also analysed one cross-over trial separately using the first half of the results. None of the zinc trials tested taste discrimination. Only one trial tested taste discrimination using acupuncture (effect size 2.80, 95% CI -1.18 to 6.78; low quality evidence).Out of the eight trials using zinc supplementation, four reported adverse events like eczema, nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, constipation, decrease in blood iron, increase in blood alkaline phosphatase, and minor increase in blood triglycerides. No adverse events were reported in the acupuncture trial.None of the included trials could be included in the meta-analysis for health-related quality of life in taste disorder patients.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that was insufficient to conclude on the role of zinc supplements to improve taste perception by patients, however we found moderate quality evidence that zinc supplements improve overall taste improvement in patients with zinc deficiency/idiopathic taste disorders. We also found low quality evidence that zinc supplements improve taste acuity in zinc deficient/idiopathic taste disorders and very low quality evidence for taste recognition improvement in children with taste disorders secondary to chronic renal failure. We did not find any evidence to conclude the role of zinc supplements for improving taste discrimination, or any evidence addressing health-related quality of life due to taste disorders.We found low quality evidence that is not sufficient to conclude on the role of acupuncture for improving taste discrimination in cases of idiopathic dysgeusia (distortion of taste) and hypogeusia (reduced ability to taste). We were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of zinc supplements or acupuncture as none of the trials compared these interventions.
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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found no evidence that any glucose monitoring technique is superior to any other technique among pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes. The evidence base for the effectiveness of monitoring techniques is weak and additional evidence from large well-designed randomised trials is required to inform choices of glucose monitoring techniques.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of antimalarial MDA on population asexual parasitaemia prevalence, parasitaemia incidence, gametocytaemia prevalence, anaemia prevalence, mortality and MDA-associated adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Disease Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE+, EMBASE, to February 2013. We also searched CABS Abstracts, LILACS, reference lists, and recent conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Cluster-randomized trials and non-randomized controlled studies comparing therapeutic MDA versus placebo or no MDA, and uncontrolled before-and-after studies comparing post-MDA to baseline data were selected. Studies administering intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) to sub-populations (for example, pregnant women, children or infants) were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently reviewed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Studies were stratified by study design and then subgrouped by endemicity, by co-administration of 8-aminoquinoline plus schizonticide drugs and by plasmodium species. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: Two cluster-randomized trials, eight non-randomized controlled studies and 22 uncontrolled before-and-after studies are included in this review. Twenty-two studies (29 comparisons) compared MDA to placebo or no intervention of which two comparisons were conducted in areas of low endemicity (≤5%), 12 in areas of moderate endemicity (6-39%) and 15 in areas of high endemicity (≥ 40%). Ten studies evaluated MDA plus other vector control measures. The studies used a wide variety of MDA regimens incorporating different drugs, dosages, timings and numbers of MDA rounds. Many of the studies are now more than 30 years old. Areas of low endemicity (≤5%)Within the first month post-MDA, a single uncontrolled before-and-after study conducted in 1955 on a small Taiwanese island reported a much lower prevalence of parasitaemia following a single course of chloroquine compared to baseline (1 study, very low quality evidence). This lower parasite prevalence was still present after more than 12 months (one study, very low quality evidence). In addition, one cluster-randomized trial evaluating MDA in a low endemic setting reported zero episodes of parasitaemia at baseline, and throughout five months of follow-up in both the control and intervention arms (one study, very low quality evidence). Areas of moderate endemicity (6-39%)Within the first month post-MDA, the prevalence of parasitaemia was much lower in three non-randomized controlled studies from Kenya and India in the 1950s (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.08, three studies, moderate quality evidence), and in three uncontrolled before-and-after studies conducted between 1954 and 1961 (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.48, three studies,low quality evidence).The longest follow-up in these settings was four to six months. At this time point, the prevalence of parasitaemia remained substantially lower than controls in the two non-randomized controlled studies (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.33, two studies, low quality evidence). In contrast, the two uncontrolled before-and-after studies found mixed results: one found no difference and one found a substantially higher prevalence compared to baseline (not pooled, two studies, very low quality evidence). Areas of high endemicity (≥40%)Within the first month post-MDA, the single cluster-randomized trial from the Gambia in 1999 found no significant difference in parasite prevalence (one study, low quality evidence). However, prevalence was much lower during the MDA programmes in three non-randomized controlled studies conducted in the 1960s and 1970s (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.27, three studies, moderate quality evidence), and within one month of MDA in four uncontrolled before-and-after studies (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.49, four studies,low quality evidence).Four trials reported changes in prevalence beyond three months. In the Gambia, the single cluster-randomized trial found no difference at five months (one trial, moderate quality evidence). The three uncontrolled before-and-after studies had mixed findings with large studies from Palestine and Cambodia showing sustained reductions at four months and 12 months, respectively, and a small study from Malaysia showing no difference after four to six months of follow-up (three studies,low quality evidence). 8-aminoquinolines We found no studies directly comparing MDA regimens that included 8-aminoquinolines with regimens that did not. In a crude subgroup analysis with a limited number of studies, we were unable to detect any evidence of additional benefit of primaquine in moderate- and high-transmission settings. Plasmodium species In studies that reported species-specific outcomes, the same interventions resulted in a larger impact on Plasmodium falciparum compared to P. vivax.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: MDA appears to reduce substantially the initial risk of malaria parasitaemia. However, few studies showed sustained impact beyond six months post-MDA, and those that did were conducted on small islands or in highland settings.To assess whether there is an impact of MDA on malaria transmission in the longer term requires more quasi experimental studies with the intention of elimination, especially in low- and moderate-transmission settings. These studies need to address any long-term outcomes, any potential barriers for community uptake, and contribution to the development of drug resistance.
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: 1. To assess effects on learning outcomes of supplementation of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) for children with specific learning disorders.2. To determine whether adverse effects of supplementation of PUFAs are reported in these children.
SEARCH METHODS: In November 2015, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, 10 other databases and two trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing PUFAs with placebo or no treatment in children younger than 18 years with specific learning disabilities, as diagnosed in accordance with the fifth (or earlier) edition of theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), or the 10th (or earlier) revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) or equivalent criteria. We included children with coexisting developmental disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or autism.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors (MLT and KHT) independently screened the titles and abstracts of articles identified by the search and eliminated all studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria. We contacted study authors to ask for missing information and clarification, when needed. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: Two small studies involving 116 children, mainly boys between 10 and 18 years of age, met the inclusion criteria. One study was conducted in a school setting, the other at a specialised clinic. Both studies used three months of a combination of omega-3 and omega-6 supplements as the intervention compared with placebo. Although both studies had generally low risk of bias, we judged the risk of reporting bias as unclear in one study, and as high in the other study. In addition, one of the studies was funded by industry and reported active company involvement in the study.None of the studies reported data on the primary outcomes of reading, writing, spelling and mathematics scores, as assessed by standardised tests.Evidence of low quality indicates that supplementation of PUFAs did not increase the risk of gastrointestinal disturbances (risk ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 8.15; two studies, 116 children). Investigators reported no other adverse effects.Both studies reported attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-related behaviour outcomes. We were unable to combine the results in a meta-analysis because one study reported findings as a continuous outcome, and the other as a dichotomous outcome. No other secondary outcomes were reported.We excluded one study because it used a cointervention (carnosine), and five other studies because they did not provide a robust diagnosis of a specific learning disorder. We identified one ongoing study and found three studies awaiting classification.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to permit any conclusions about the effect of PUFAs on the learning abilities of children with specific learning disorders. Well-designed RCTs with clearly defined populations of children with specific learning disorders who have been diagnosed by standardised diagnostic criteria are needed.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of centralisation of care for patients with gynaecological cancer.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to November 2010. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, and reference lists of included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and observational studies that examined centralisation of services for gynaecological cancer, and used multivariable analysis to adjust for baseline case mix.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data, and two assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data on survival in a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met our inclusion criteria; all were retrospective observational studies and therefore at high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 9000 women suggested that institutions with gynaecologic oncologists on site may prolong survival in women with ovarian cancer, compared to community or general hospitals: hazard ratio (HR) of death was 0.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.99). Similarly, another meta-analysis of three studies assessing over 50,000 women, found that teaching centres or regional cancer centres may prolong survival in women with any gynaecological cancer compared to community or general hospitals (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99). The largest of these studies included all gynaecological malignancies and assessed 48,981 women, so the findings extend beyond ovarian cancer. One study compared community hospitals with semi-specialised gynaecologists versus general hospitals and reported non-significantly better disease-specific survival in women with ovarian cancer (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). The findings of included studies were highly consistent. Adverse event data were not reported in any of the studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low quality, but consistent evidence to suggest that women with gynaecological cancer who received treatment in specialised centres had longer survival than those managed elsewhere. The evidence was stronger for ovarian cancer than for other gynaecological cancers.Further studies of survival are needed, with more robust designs than retrospective observational studies. Research should also assess the quality of life associated with centralisation of gynaecological cancer care. Most of the available evidence addresses ovarian cancer in developed countries; future studies should be extended to other gynaecological cancers within different healthcare systems.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of anticoagulant therapies for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis in pregnancy. The anticoagulant drugs included are UFH, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2010) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any combination of warfarin, UFH, LMWH and placebo in pregnant women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used methods described in the Cochrane Handbooks for Systemic Reviews of Interventions for assessing the eligibility of studies identified by the search strategy. A minimum of two review authors independently assessed each study.
MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any eligible studies for inclusion in the review.We identified three potential studies; after assessing eligibility, we excluded all three as they did not meet the prespecified inclusion criteria. One study compared LMWH and UFH in pregnant women with previous thromboembolic events and, for most of these women, anticoagulants were used as thromboprophylaxis. There were only three women who had a thromboembolic event during the current pregnancy and it was unclear whether the anticoagulant was used as therapy or prophylaxis. We excluded one study because it included only women undergoing caesarean birth. The third study was not a randomised trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials on the effectiveness of anticoagulation for deep vein thrombosis in pregnancy. Further studies are required.
OBJECTIVES: This review aims to examine the effectiveness of antibiotic therapies in relieving symptoms for breastfeeding women with mastitis with or without laboratory investigation.
SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (December 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1996 to 2007) and EMBASE (January 1985 to 2007). We contacted investigators and other content experts known to us for unpublished trials and scanned the reference lists of retrieved articles
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized clinical trials comparing the effectiveness of various types of antibiotic therapies or antibiotic therapy versus alternative therapies for the treatment of mastitis were selected.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. When in dispute, we consulted a third author.
MAIN RESULTS: Two trials met the inclusion criteria. One small trial (n = 25) compared amoxicillin with cephradine and found no significant difference between the two antibiotics in terms of symptom relief and abscess formation. Another, older study compared breast emptying alone as "supportive therapy" versus antibiotic therapy plus supportive therapy, and no therapy. The findings of the latter study suggested faster clearance of symptoms for women using antibiotics, although the study design was problematic.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to confirm or refute the effectiveness of antibiotic therapy for the treatment of lactational mastitis. There is an urgent need to conduct high-quality, double-blinded randomized clinical trials to determine whether antibiotics should be used in this common postpartum condition.