-
International Journal of Paediatric... Nov 2016To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the findings on the clinical efficacy of intracanal irrigants employed during pulpectomy of primary teeth. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the findings on the clinical efficacy of intracanal irrigants employed during pulpectomy of primary teeth.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in electronic databases and peer-reviewed paediatric dentistry journals to find relevant studies. Titles, abstracts, and full-text papers were located, screened, and assessed independently by two reviewers, and a meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
The search identified a total of 775 records; 46 were selected and reviewed in full text. After screening, seven studies met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Three studies compared the 2% chlorhexidine and saline solutions, but no analysis could be performed because of the heterogeneity between these; two of the studies reported non-comparative methodologies and results when compared, and were not analysed. Finally, two studies compared a mixture of tetracycline isomer, an acid, and a detergent (MTDA) or oxidative potential water (OPW) to sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), without showing significant heterogeneity; therefore, their combined outcomes were included. Both fixed and random mixed models resulted in a non-significant weighted mean difference between treatments, according to a forest plot.
CONCLUSIONS
More studies are required with adequate quality, as well as a full-result report, including summary measurements of both response variables and effect size, to determine the most effective irrigant agents for use in pulpectomies.
Topics: Humans; Pulpectomy; Root Canal Irrigants; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 26898157
DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12228 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diarrhoea accounts for 1.8 million deaths in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One of the identified strategies to prevent diarrhoea is hand washing.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of hand-washing promotion interventions on diarrhoeal episodes in children and adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP), and metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) on 8 January 2020, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Individually-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs that compared the effects of hand-washing interventions on diarrhoea episodes in children and adults with no intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We stratified the analyses for child day-care centres or schools, community, and hospital-based settings. Where appropriate, we pooled incidence rate ratios (IRRs) using the generic inverse variance method and a random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 29 RCTs: 13 trials from child day-care centres or schools in mainly high-income countries (54,471 participants), 15 community-based trials in LMICs (29,347 participants), and one hospital-based trial among people with AIDS in a high-income country (148 participants). All the trials and follow-up assessments were of short-term duration. Hand-washing promotion (education activities, sometimes with provision of soap) at child day-care facilities or schools prevent around one-third of diarrhoea episodes in high-income countries (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 9 trials, 4664 participants, high-certainty evidence) and may prevent a similar proportion in LMICs, but only two trials from urban Egypt and Kenya have evaluated this (IRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.99; 2 trials, 45,380 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only four trials reported measures of behaviour change, and the methods of data collection were susceptible to bias. In one trial from the USA hand-washing behaviour was reported to improve; and in the trial from Kenya that provided free soap, hand washing did not increase, but soap use did (data not pooled; 3 trials, 1845 participants; low-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion among communities in LMICs probably prevents around one-quarter of diarrhoea episodes (IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.81; 9 trials, 15,950 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, six of these nine trials were from Asian settings, with only one trial from South America and two trials from sub-Saharan Africa. In seven trials, soap was provided free alongside hand-washing education, and the overall average effect size was larger than in the two trials which did not provide soap (soap provided: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.75; 7 trials, 12,646 participants; education only: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.05; 2 trials, 3304 participants). There was increased hand washing at major prompts (before eating or cooking, after visiting the toilet, or cleaning the baby's bottom) and increased compliance with hand-hygiene procedure (behavioural outcome) in the intervention groups compared with the control in community trials (data not pooled: 4 trials, 3591 participants; high-certainty evidence). Hand-washing promotion for the one trial conducted in a hospital among a high-risk population showed significant reduction in mean episodes of diarrhoea (1.68 fewer) in the intervention group (mean difference -1.68, 95% CI -1.93 to -1.43; 1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hand-washing frequency increased to seven times a day in the intervention group versus three times a day in the control arm in this hospital trial (1 trial, 148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no trials evaluating the effects of hand-washing promotions on diarrhoea-related deaths or cost effectiveness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Hand-washing promotion probably reduces diarrhoea episodes in both child day-care centres in high-income countries and among communities living in LMICs by about 30%. The included trials do not provide evidence about the long-term impact of the interventions.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Child; Child Day Care Centers; Community-Acquired Infections; Cross Infection; Developed Countries; Developing Countries; Diarrhea; Hand Disinfection; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schools; Soaps
PubMed: 33539552
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004265.pub4 -
Journal of the European Academy of... Feb 2023Skin hyperpigmentation after sclerotherapy with polidocanol-containing sclerosants is a common local side effect. Sclerotherapists should be familiar with factors that... (Review)
Review
Skin hyperpigmentation after sclerotherapy with polidocanol-containing sclerosants is a common local side effect. Sclerotherapists should be familiar with factors that trigger hyperpigmentation after sclerotherapy with polidocanol-containing sclerosants. A systematic literature review of works reporting hyperpigmentation after sclerotherapy for telangiectasias, reticular veins, side branches and truncal varices with polidocanol-containing sclerosants was performed. Reported incidence rates, follow-up periods and potentially triggering factors were assessed and analysed. The search yielded 1687 results; of these, 27 reports met the inclusion criteria. The incidence of hyperpigmentation seemed to increase with higher concentrations of polidocanol and was more evident after sclerotherapy for epifascial veins than for intrafascial truncal veins when the polidocanol concentration was more than 0.25%. Regarding sclerotherapy for telangiectasias and reticular veins, the incidence of hyperpigmentation ranged between 2% and 25% for polidocanol 0.25% (liquid and foam), between 12.5% and 67.9% for polidocanol 0.5% (liquid and foam) and between 13% and 73% for polidocanol 1% (liquid and foam). Regarding truncal veins, the incidence ranged from 7% to 45.8% for polidocanol 1% (liquid and foam), from 16% to 17% for polidocanol 2% (foam) and from 7.4% to 32.5% for polidocanol 3% (liquid and foam). Regarding the treatment of side branches, the incidence of hyperpigmentation ranged from 5.6% to 53% for both foam and liquid sclerotherapy. Regarding the duration of hyperpigmentation, there are few data describing reticular veins and telangiectasias. Hyperpigmentation persisting for more than 6 months has been reported to have an incidence of up to 7.5%. Hyperpigmentation persisting for more than 1 year after foam polidocanol 1%-3% treatment for truncal veins has an incidence ranging from 8.1% to 17.5%. Other factors such as higher volumes and compression therapy after treatment seem to have a minor influence. Data regarding hyperpigmentation after polidocanol-related sclerotherapy are poor and should be improved by higher-quality research.
Topics: Humans; Polidocanol; Sclerotherapy; Sclerosing Solutions; Varicose Veins; Polyethylene Glycols; Telangiectasis; Hyperpigmentation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36196455
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.18639 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015Achilles tendinopathy is a common condition, often with significant functional consequences. As a wide range of injection treatments are available, a review of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Achilles tendinopathy is a common condition, often with significant functional consequences. As a wide range of injection treatments are available, a review of randomised trials evaluating injection therapies to help inform treatment decisions is warranted.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of injection therapies for people with Achilles tendinopathy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 20 April 2015: the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus. We also searched trial registers (29 May 2014) and reference lists of articles to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating injection therapies in adults with an investigator-reported diagnosis of Achilles tendinopathy. We accepted comparison arms of placebo (sham) or no injection control, or other active treatment (such as physiotherapy, pharmaceuticals or surgery). Our primary outcomes were function, using measures such as the VISA-A (Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles questionnaire), and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We assessed treatment effects using mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for dichotomous variables. For follow-up data, we defined short-term as up to six weeks, medium-term as up to three months and longer-term as data beyond three months. We performed meta-analysis where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 studies (732 participants). Seven trials exclusively studied athletic populations. The mean ages of the participants in the individual trials ranged from 20 years to 50 years. Fifteen trials compared an injection therapy with a placebo injection or no injection control, four trials compared an injection therapy with active treatment, and one compared two different concentrations of the same injection. Thus no trials compared different injection therapies. Two studies had three trial arms and we included them twice in two different categories. Within these categories, we further subdivided injection therapies by mode of action (injury-causing versus direct repair agents).The risk of bias was unclear (due to poor reporting) or high in six trials published between 1987 and 1994. Improved methodology and reporting for the subsequent trials published between 2004 and 2013 meant that these were at less risk of bias.Given the very low quality evidence available from each of four small trials comparing different combinations of injection therapy versus active treatment and the single trial comparing two doses of one injection therapy, only the results of the first comparison (injection therapy versus control) are presented.There is low quality evidence of a lack of significant or clinically important differences in VISA-A scores (0 to 100: best function) between injection therapy and control groups at six weeks (MD 0.79, 95% CI -4.56 to 6.14; 200 participants, five trials), three months (MD -0.94, 95% CI -6.34 to 4.46; 189 participants, five trials) or between six and 12 months (MD 0.14, 95% CI -6.54 to 6.82; 132 participants, three trials). Very low quality evidence from 13 trials showed little difference between the two groups in adverse events (14/243 versus 12/206; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.89), most of which were minor and short-lasting. The only major adverse event in the injection therapy group was an Achilles tendon rupture, which happened in a trial testing corticosteroid injections. There was very low quality evidence in favour of the injection therapy group in short-term (under three months) pain (219 participants, seven trials) and in the return to sports (335 participants, seven trials). There was very low quality evidence indicating little difference between groups in patient satisfaction with treatment (152 participants, four trials). There was insufficient evidence to conclude on subgroup differences based on mode of action given that only two trials tested injury-causing agents and the clear heterogeneity of the other 13 trials, which tested seven different therapies that act directly on the repair pathway.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to draw conclusions on the use, or to support the routine use, of injection therapies for treating Achilles tendinopathy. This review has highlighted a need for definitive research in the area of injection therapies for Achilles tendinopathy, including in older non-athletic populations. This review has shown that there is a consensus in the literature that placebo-controlled trials are considered the most appropriate trial design.
Topics: Achilles Tendon; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Aprotinin; Athletes; Fibroblasts; Glycosaminoglycans; Hemodialysis Solutions; Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Middle Aged; Platelet Transfusion; Polidocanol; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium Chloride; Tendinopathy; Young Adult
PubMed: 26009861
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010960.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Annually, infections contribute to approximately 25% of the 2.8 million neonatal deaths worldwide. Over 95% of sepsis-related neonatal deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries. Hand hygiene is an inexpensive and cost-effective method of preventing infection in neonates, making it an affordable and practicable intervention in low- and middle-income country settings. Therefore, hand hygiene practices may hold strong prospects for reducing the occurrence of infection and infection-related neonatal death.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of different hand hygiene agents for preventing neonatal infection in both community and health facility settings.
SEARCH METHODS
Searches were conducted without date or language limits in December 2022 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) trial registries. The reference lists of retrieved studies or related systematic reviews were screened for studies not identified by the searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over trials, and cluster trials that included pregnant women, mothers, other caregivers, and healthcare workers who received interventions within either the community setting or in health facility settings, and the neonates in the neonatal care units or community settings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were incidence of suspected infection (author-defined in study) within the first 28 days of life, bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life, all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life (early neonatal death), and all-cause mortality from the 8th to the 28th day of life (late neonatal death).
MAIN RESULTS
Our review included six studies: two RCTs, one cluster-RCT, and three cross-over trials. Three studies involved 3281 neonates; the remaining three did not specify the actual number of neonates included in their study. Three studies involved 279 nurses working in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). The number of nurses included was not specified by one study. A cluster-RCT included 103 pregnant women of over 34 weeks gestation from 10 villages in a community setting (sources of data: 103 mother-neonate pairs) and another community-based study included 258 married pregnant women at 32 to 34 weeks of gestation (the trial reported adverse events on 258 mothers and 246 neonates). Studies examined the effectiveness of different hand hygiene practices for the incidence of suspected infection (author-defined in study) within the first 28 days of life. Three studies were rated as having low risk for allocation bias, two studies were rated as unclear risk, and one was rated as having high risk. One study was rated as having a low risk of bias for allocation concealment, one study was rated as unclear risk, and four werw rated as having high risk. Two studies were rated as having low risk for performance bias and two were rated as having low risk for attrition bias. One class of agent versus another class of agent: 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) compared to alcohol hand sanitiser (61% alcohol and emollients) For this comparison, no study assessed the effect of the intervention on the incidence of suspected infection within the first 28 days of life. Two percent chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) probably reduces the risk of all infection in neonates compared to 61% alcohol hand sanitiser in regard to the incidence of all bacteriologically confirmed infection within the first 28 days of life (RR 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.93; 2932 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB): 385. The adverse outcome was reported as mean self-reported skin change and mean observer-reported skin change. There may be little to no difference between the effects of 2% CHG on nurses' skin compared to alcohol hand sanitiser, based on very low-certainty evidence for mean self-reported skin change (mean difference (MD) -0.80, 95% CI -1.59 to 0.01; 119 participants, 1 study) and on mean observer reported skin change (MD -0.19, CI -0.35 to -0.03; 119 participants, 1 study), respectively. We identified no study that reported on all-cause mortality and other outcomes for this comparison. None of the included studies assessed all-cause mortality within the first seven days of life nor the duration of hospital stay. One class of agent versus two or more other classes of agent: CHG compared to plain liquid soap + hand sanitiser We identified no studies that reported on our primary and secondary outcomes for this comparison except for author-defined adverse events. We are very uncertain whether plain soap plus hand sanitiser is better than CHG for nurses' skin based on very low-certainty evidence (MD -1.87, 95% CI -3.74 to -0.00; 16 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). One agent versus standard care: alcohol-based handrub (hand sanitiser) versus usual care The evidence is very uncertain whether alcohol-based handrub is better than 'usual care' in the prevention of suspected infections, as reported by mothers (RR 0.98, CI 0.69 to 1.39; 103 participants, 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether alcohol-based hand sanitiser is better than 'usual care' in reducing the occurrence of early and late neonatal mortality (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.00; 103 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) and (RR 0.29, CI 0.01 to 7.00; 103 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), respectively. We identified no studies that reported on other outcomes for this comparison.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found a paucity of data that would allow us to reach meaningful conclusions pertaining to the superiority of one form of antiseptic hand hygiene agent over another for the prevention of neonatal infection. Also, the sparse available data were of moderate- to very low-certainty. We are uncertain as to the superiority of one hand hygiene agent over another because this review included very few studies with very serious study limitations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Ethanol; Hand Hygiene; Perinatal Death; Soaps
PubMed: 37278689
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013326.pub4 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Apr 2023This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effects of washing in patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) on radiation dermatitis (RD) severity. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effects of washing in patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) on radiation dermatitis (RD) severity.
METHODS
A literature search was performed using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases between January 1, 1946, and January 31, 2023. Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the effects of washing with or without soap on RD were identified. A meta-analysis was conducted for clinician-reported outcomes using RevMan 5.4 and a narrative synthesis for patient-reported outcomes due to a lack of reported data amenable to quantitative comparison in accordance with the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines. The Cochrane Risk of bias (RoB2) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria were used to assess risk of bias and certainty of evidence, respectively.
RESULTS
Two RCTs met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Washing with or without soap significantly reduced the incidence of severe RD (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.19-0.55, p < 0.01) and moist desquamation (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.12-0.52, p < 0.01). Two of four trials found an association between washing and reduced itching score (p = 0.38). Pain score was not found to be significantly different with or without washing in any of the four studies (p = 0.07). The two studies that assessed burn scores did not detect any difference between the washing group versus no washing group (p = 0.25). Washing was associated with improved quality of life (QoL) measures in one study.
CONCLUSION
Washing with or without soap during RT resulted in less severe RD and less moist desquamation. Given the QoL benefits of washing, it should be advocated as part of routine skin care during RT.
Topics: Humans; Soaps; Radiation Oncology; Dermatitis; Hygiene
PubMed: 37086339
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-07720-8 -
International Journal of Environmental... Sep 2022Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a global and evolving pandemic associated with heavy health and financial burdens. Considering the oral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a global and evolving pandemic associated with heavy health and financial burdens. Considering the oral cavity as the major reservoir for SARS-CoV-2, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the efficacy of mouth rinses and nasal sprays in reducing the salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2. All and studies that assessed the virucidal efficacy of mouth rinses and nasal sprays against SARS-CoV-2 and were published in the English language from December 2019 to April 2022 were considered for analyses. Special Medical Subject Headings terms were used to search Pubmed, Scopus, Embase Ovid, and Web of Science databases. The toxicological data reliability assessment tool (ToxRToool) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Thirty-three studies (11 and 22 ) were deemed eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Results of the pooled data showed that povidone-iodine is the most efficacious intervention in terms of reducing the SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load, followed by chlorhexidine. The mean difference in the viral load was 86% and 72%, respectively. Similarly, povidone-iodine was associated with the highest log reduction value (LRV) , followed by cetylpyridinium chloride, (LRV = 2.938 ( < 0.0005) and LRV = 2.907 ( = 0.009), respectively). Povidone-iodine-based oral and nasal preparations showed favourable results in terms of reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral loads both and . Considering the limited number of patients , further studies among larger cohorts are recommended.
Topics: COVID-19; Cetylpyridinium; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Mouthwashes; Nasal Sprays; Povidone-Iodine; Reproducibility of Results; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 36231450
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912148 -
Blood Transfusion = Trasfusione Del... Jul 2016Only a few studies have compared solvent/detergent plasma (SD-plasma) to standard fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) in terms of efficacy and safety. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Only a few studies have compared solvent/detergent plasma (SD-plasma) to standard fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) in terms of efficacy and safety.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was performed in order to develop a consensus document on the use of SD-plasma. Moreover, a pharmacoeconomic study was performed in order to assess whether the use of SD-plasma can be cost-effective with respect to the use of FFP. A multidisciplinary panel used the systematic review and the GRADE methodology to develop evidence-based recommendations on this topic.
RESULTS
Based on moderate to very low quality evidence, the panel developed the following consensus statements: (i) the panel suggested that SD-plasma is safer than FFP; (ii) the panel could not express for or against a greater efficacy of SD-plasma as compared to FFP; (iii) the panel suggested that in patients undergoing liver transplantation SD-plasma can be preferred over FFP; (iv) the panel suggested that SD-plasma can be preferred over FFP in patients with thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura undergoing plasma-exchange procedures; (v) the panel could not recommend for or against preferring SD-plasma over FFP in critical care patients; and (vi) the panel suggested that the use of SD-plasma can be cost-effective with respect to the use of FFP.
DISCUSSION
Data from additional randomised studies are needed to establish more definitive guidelines on the use of SD-plasma.
PubMed: 27136429
DOI: 10.2450/2016.0168-15 -
The Journal of Dermatological Treatment Nov 2018Washing and over-the-counter cleansers are common interventions in acne vulgaris (AV), but the clinical evidence for their benefit is poorly understood. This systematic... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Washing and over-the-counter cleansers are common interventions in acne vulgaris (AV), but the clinical evidence for their benefit is poorly understood. This systematic review presents clinical studies of washing and cleanser efficacy in acne vulgaris to guide treatment recommendations of dermatologists.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We surveyed English-language articles indexed in MEDLINE (1951-March 2017) and EMBASE (1974-March 2017). Articles were required to be prospective studies of a single over-the-counter cleanser or washing intervention in AV with an objective AV outcome measurement published in a peer-reviewed journal.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Fourteen prospective studies representing 671 participants were included in this review. Modalities investigated included face washing frequency, true soap/syndet cleansing bars, antiseptic cleansers, alpha and beta-hydroxy (i.e. salicylic) acid cleansers, and several proprietary formulations. Given the low number of well-performed clinical studies of cleansers and washing, it is difficult to formulate reliable recommendations. We hope that our findings highlight the necessity of further investigation in this area.
Topics: Acne Vulgaris; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Benzoyl Peroxide; Detergents; Face; Glycolates; Humans; Propionibacterium acnes; Salicylic Acid
PubMed: 29460655
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2018.1442552 -
International Archives of Occupational... Jan 2022Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) is a major cause of occupational disease. The aim was to review the relation between exposure to occupational irritants and ICD and the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) is a major cause of occupational disease. The aim was to review the relation between exposure to occupational irritants and ICD and the prognosis of ICD.
METHODS
Through a systematic search, 1516 titles were identified, and 48 studies were included in the systematic review.
RESULTS
We found that the evidence for an association between ICD and occupational irritants was strong for wet work, moderate for detergents and non-alcoholic disinfectants, and strong for a combination. The highest quality studies provided limited evidence for an association with use of occlusive gloves without other exposures and moderate evidence with simultaneous exposure to other wet work irritants. The evidence for an association between minor ICD and exposure to metalworking fluids was moderate. Regarding mechanical exposures, the literature was scarce and the evidence limited. We found that the prognosis for complete healing of ICD is poor, but improves after decrease of exposure through change of occupation or work tasks. There was no substantial evidence for an influence of gender, age, or household exposures. Inclusion of atopic dermatitis in the analysis did not alter the risk of ICD. Studies were at risk of bias, mainly due to selection and misclassification of exposure and outcome. This may have attenuated the results.
CONCLUSION
This review reports strong evidence for an association between ICD and a combination of exposure to wet work and non-alcoholic disinfectants, moderate for metalworking fluids, limited for mechanical and glove exposure, and a strong evidence for a poor prognosis of ICD.
Topics: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatitis, Irritant; Dermatitis, Occupational; Humans; Irritants; Occupational Exposure; Skin
PubMed: 34665298
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-021-01781-0