-
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology... Nov 2017Research indicates a correlative relationship between asthma and use of consumer cleaning products. We conduct a systematic review of epidemiological literature on... (Review)
Review
Research indicates a correlative relationship between asthma and use of consumer cleaning products. We conduct a systematic review of epidemiological literature on persons who use or are exposed to cleaning products, both in occupational and domestic settings, and risk of asthma or asthma-like symptoms to improve understanding of the causal relationship between exposure and asthma. A scoring method for assessing study reliability is presented. Although research indicates an association between asthma and the use of cleaning products, no study robustly investigates exposure to cleaning products or ingredients along with asthma risk. This limits determination of causal relationships between asthma and specific products or ingredients in chemical safety assessment. These limitations, and a lack of robust animal models for toxicological assessment of asthma, create the need for a weight-of-evidence (WoE) approach to examine an ingredient or product's asthmatic potential. This proposed WoE method organizes diverse lines of data (i.e., asthma, sensitization, and irritation information) through a systematic, hierarchical framework that provides qualitatively categorized conclusions using hazard bands to predict a specific product or ingredient's potential for asthma induction. This work provides a method for prioritizing chemicals as a first step for quantitative and scenario-specific safety assessments based on their potential for inducing asthmatic effects. Acetic acid is used as a case study to test this framework.
Topics: Acetic Acid; Animals; Asthma; Consumer Product Safety; Detergents; Humans; Irritants; Models, Animal; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Exposure; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 28918194
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.09.013 -
Tropical Medicine & International... Apr 2023Arboviruses are emerging as a relevant threat to transfusion safety. Pathogen inactivation methods (PIMs) may reduce the risk of transmission through transfusion, as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Arboviruses are emerging as a relevant threat to transfusion safety. Pathogen inactivation methods (PIMs) may reduce the risk of transmission through transfusion, as long as they meet minimum standards for effectiveness. This study aims to assess the log reduction of viral load achieved with different PIMs, according to the blood product they are used on and the arbovirus targeted.
METHODS
Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE and Embase. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO CRD42022312061. We selected records reporting the log reduction of viral load achieved with the main PIMs (amotosalen + UVA light [INTERCEPT], riboflavin + UV light [Mirasol], methylene blue + visible light/UVC light [THERAFLEX], solvent detergent, amustaline [INTERCEPT] and PEN110 [Inactine]), applied to any blood product (plasma, platelets, red blood cells or whole blood) and for any arbovirus. The log reduction of viral loads was assessed by obtaining the mean log reduction factor (LRF). We compared and classified the LRF of different techniques using statistical methods.
RESULTS
We included 59 publications reporting LRF results in 17 arboviruses. For 13 arboviruses, including Chikungunya virus, Dengue virus, West Nile virus and Zika virus, at least one of the methods achieves adequate or optimal log reduction of viral load-mean LRF ≥4. The LRF achieved with riboflavin + UV light is inferior to the rest of the techniques, both overall and specifically for plasma, platelets preserved in platelet additive solution (PAS)/plasma, and red blood cells/whole blood. The LRF achieved using Mirasol is also lower for inactivating Chikungunya virus, Dengue virus and Zika virus. For West Nile virus, we found no significant differences. In plasma, the method that achieves the highest LRF is solvent/detergent; in platelets, THERAFLEX and INTERCEPT; and in red blood cells/whole blood, PEN110 (Inactine).
CONCLUSION
Not all PIMs achieve the same LRF, nor is this equivalent between the different arboviruses or blood products. Overall, the LRFs achieved using riboflavin + UV light (Mirasol) are inferior to those achieved with the rest of the PIMs. Regarding the others, LRFs vary by arbovirus and blood product. In light of the threat of different arboviruses, blood establishments should have already validated PIMs and be logistically prepared to implement these techniques quickly.
Topics: Humans; Arboviruses; Detergents; Polyamines; Zika Virus; Riboflavin; Zika Virus Infection
PubMed: 36806816
DOI: 10.1111/tmi.13863 -
Techniques in Coloproctology Jan 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sclerotherapy methods for hemorrhoidal disease (HD) over the past 40 years. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sclerotherapy methods for hemorrhoidal disease (HD) over the past 40 years.
METHODS
The review followed the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted, including studies reporting the use of sclerotherapy in patients with HD. Study eligibility criteria were defined, and data were extracted independently by the authors. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to assess outcomes of interest.
RESULTS
Out of 1965 records identified, 44 studies met the inclusion criteria, involving 9729 patients. The majority of studies were conducted in Japan, followed by the UK, Italy, and Portugal. The median age of participants was 52 years, and the majority were male. The Goligher grade distribution indicated varying degrees of HD severity. Sclerotherapy was predominantly administered through anoscopy, with polidocanol being the most commonly used agent. The procedure was generally performed without pre-injection analgesia. The meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) revealed that sclerotherapy was not inferior to control interventions in terms of success rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.71-1.41) and recurrence rate (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.69-1.77), while resulting in fewer complications (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.23-0.92).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review highlights the safety and efficacy of sclerotherapy for HD, which yields similar success rates and fewer complications compared to other conservative or surgical approaches. Further research is warranted to optimize sclerotherapy techniques and evaluate long-term outcomes.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023396910.
Topics: Male; Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Sclerotherapy; Hemorrhoids; Italy; Odds Ratio; Polidocanol
PubMed: 38261136
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-023-02908-w -
Tropical Medicine & International... Aug 2014To estimate the global prevalence of handwashing with soap and derive a pooled estimate of the effect of hygiene on diarrhoeal diseases, based on a systematic search of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the global prevalence of handwashing with soap and derive a pooled estimate of the effect of hygiene on diarrhoeal diseases, based on a systematic search of the literature.
METHODS
Studies with data on observed rates of handwashing with soap published between 1990 and August 2013 were identified from a systematic search of PubMed, Embase and ISI Web of Knowledge. A separate search was conducted for studies on the effect of hygiene on diarrhoeal disease that included randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised trials with control group, observational studies using matching techniques and observational studies with a control group where the intervention was well defined. The search used Cochrane Library, Global Health, BIOSIS, PubMed, and Embase databases supplemented with reference lists from previously published systematic reviews to identify studies published between 1970 and August 2013. Results were combined using multilevel modelling for handwashing prevalence and meta-regression for risk estimates.
RESULTS
From the 42 studies reporting handwashing prevalence we estimate that approximately 19% of the world population washes hands with soap after contact with excreta (i.e. use of a sanitation facility or contact with children's excreta). Meta-regression of risk estimates suggests that handwashing reduces the risk of diarrhoeal disease by 40% (risk ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.53-0.68); however, when we included an adjustment for unblinded studies, the effect estimate was reduced to 23% (risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.32-1.86).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results show that handwashing after contact with excreta is poorly practiced globally, despite the likely positive health benefits.
Topics: Diarrhea; Environmental Exposure; Global Health; Hand Disinfection; Humans; Hygiene; Sanitation; Soaps
PubMed: 24889816
DOI: 10.1111/tmi.12339 -
Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical... Oct 2021Currently there is no systematic review and meta-analysis of the global incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the...
BACKGROUND
Currently there is no systematic review and meta-analysis of the global incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the general adult population.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the incidence rates of anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions after COVID-19 vaccines and describe the demographic and clinical characteristics, triggers, presenting signs and symptoms, treatment and clinical course of confirmed cases.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] statement was followed.
METHODS
Electronic databases (Proquest, Medline, Embase, Pubmed, CINAHL, Wiley online library, and Nature) were searched from 1 December 2020 to 31 May 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination: anaphylaxis, non-anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, nonanaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic/anaphylactoid shock, hypersensitivity, allergy reaction, allergic reaction, immunology reaction, immunologic reaction, angioedema, loss of consciousness, generalized erythema, urticaria, urticarial rash, cyanosis, grunting, stridor, tachypnoea, wheezing, tachycardia, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and tryptase. We included studies in adults of all ages in all healthcare settings. Effect sizes of prevalence were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). To minimize heterogeneity, we performed sub-group analyses.
RESULTS
Of the 1,734 papers that were identified, 26 articles were included in the systematic review (8 case report, 5 cohort, 4 case series, 2 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) and 14 articles (1 cohort, 2 case series, 1 randomized controlled trial and 1 randomized cross-sectional studies) were included in meta-analysis. Studies involving 26,337,421 vaccine recipients [Pfizer-BioNTech (n = 14,505,399) and Moderna (n = 11,831,488)] were analyzed. The overall pooled prevalence estimate of anaphylaxis to both vaccines was 5.0 (95% CI 2.9 to 7.2, I = 81%, p = < 0.0001), while the overall pooled prevalence estimate of nonanaphylactic reactions to both vaccines was 53.9 (95% CI 0.0 to 116.1, I = 99%, p = < 0.0001). Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech resulted in higher anaphylactic reactions compared to Moderna (8.0, 95% CI 0.0 to 11.3, I = 85% versus 2.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 5.7, I = 59%). However, lower incidence of nonanaphylactic reactions was associated with Pfizer-BioNTech compared to Moderna (43.9, 95% CI 0.0 to 131.9, I = 99% versus 63.8, 95% CI 0.0 to 151.8, I = 98%). The funnel plots for possible publication bias for the pooled effect sizes to determine the incidence of anaphylaxis and nonanaphylactic reactions associated with mRNA COVID-19 immunization based on mRNA vaccine type appeared asymmetrical on visual inspection, and Egger's tests confirmed asymmetry by producing p values < 0.05. Across the included studies, the most commonly identified risk factors for anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were female sex and personal history of atopy. The key triggers to anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions identified in these studies included foods, medications, stinging insects or jellyfish, contrast media, cosmetics and detergents, household products, and latex. Previous history of anaphylaxis; and comorbidities such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic and contact eczema/dermatitis and psoriasis and cholinergic urticaria were also found to be important.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine-associated anaphylaxis is very low; and nonanaphylactic reactions occur at higher rate, however, cutaneous reactions are largely self-limited. Both anaphylactic and nonanaphylactic reactions should not discourage vaccination.
PubMed: 34656181
DOI: 10.1186/s13223-021-00613-7 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
BMC Geriatrics Jan 2017For immobile patients, a body wash in bed is sometimes the only bathing option. Traditionally, the bed bath is performed with water and soap. However, alternatives are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
For immobile patients, a body wash in bed is sometimes the only bathing option. Traditionally, the bed bath is performed with water and soap. However, alternatives are increasingly used in health care. Washing without water is one such alternative that has been claimed to offer several advantages, such as improved hygiene and skin condition. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the evidence on outcomes of the washing without water concept compared to the traditional bed bath.
METHODS
Controlled trials about washing without water outcomes published after 1994 were collected by means of a systematic literature search in CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PUBMED at the 25th of February, 2016. Additionally, references and citations were searched and experts contacted. Studies were eligible if (1) the study designs included outcomes of washing without water products developed for the full body wash compared to the traditional bed bath, and (2) they were controlled trials. Two researchers independently used a standardized quality checklist to assess the methodological quality of the eligible studies. Finally, outcomes were categorized in (1) physiological outcomes related to hygiene and skin condition, (2) stakeholder-related outcomes, and (3) organizational outcomes in the data synthesis.
RESULTS
Out of 33 potentially relevant articles subjected to full text screening, six studies met the eligibility criteria. Only two studies (of the same research group) were considered of high quality. The results of these high quality studies show that washing without water performed better than the traditional bed bath regarding skin abnormalities and bathing completeness. No differences between washing without water and the traditional bed bath were found for outcomes related to significant skin lesions, resistance during bathing and costs in the studies of high quality.
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited moderate to high quality evidence that washing without water is not inferior to the traditional bed bath. Future research on washing without water is needed and should pay special attention to costs, hygiene, and to stakeholder-related outcomes, such as experiences and value perceptions of patients, nursing staff and family.
Topics: Baths; Disabled Persons; Humans; Hygiene; Sanitation; Soaps; Water
PubMed: 28118815
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-017-0425-4