-
The Journal of Infection Sep 2022Antibiotics are amongst the most commonly used drugs in children. In addition to inducing antibiotic resistance, antibiotic exposure has been associated with adverse... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antibiotics are amongst the most commonly used drugs in children. In addition to inducing antibiotic resistance, antibiotic exposure has been associated with adverse long-term health outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic search using PRISMA guidelines to identify original studies reporting associations between antibiotic exposure and adverse long-term health outcomes in children. Overall pooled estimates of the odds ratios (ORs) were obtained using random-effects models.
RESULTS
We identified 160 observational studies investigating 21 outcomes in 22,103,129 children. Antibiotic exposure was associated with an increased risk of atopic dermatitis (OR 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30-1.52, p < 0.01), allergic symptoms (OR 1.93, 95%CI 1.66-2.26, p < 0.01), food allergies (OR 1.35, 95%CI 1.20-1.52, p < 0.01), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (OR 1.66, 95%CI 1.51-1.83, p < 0.01), wheezing (OR 1.81, 95%CI 1.65-1.97, p < 0.01), asthma (OR 1.96, 95%CI 1.76-2.17, p < 0.01), increased weight gain or overweight (OR 1.18, 95%CI 1.11-1.26, p < 0.01), obesity (OR 1.21, 95%CI 1.05-1.40, p < 0.01), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (OR 1.74, 95%CI 1.21-2.52, p < 0.01), psoriasis (OR 1.75, 95%CI 1.44-2.11, p < 0.01), autism spectrum disorders (OR 1.19, 95%CI 1.04-1.36, p = 0.01) and neurodevelopment disorders (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.09-1.53, p < 0.01). Dose-response effects and stronger effects with broad-spectrum antibiotic were often reported. Antibiotic exposure was not associated with an altered risk of allergic sensitisation, infantile colic, abdominal pain, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, type 1 diabetes, fluorosis, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
CONCLUSION
Although a causal association cannot be determined from these studies, the results support the meticulous application of sound antibiotic stewardship to avoid potential adverse long-term health outcomes.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Asthma; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 35021114
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2022.01.005 -
Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) Feb 2024This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that employed probiotics and symbiotics for treating infantile colic. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that employed probiotics and symbiotics for treating infantile colic.
METHODS
We performed electronic systematic literature searches in Embase, PubMed and Web of Science, to identify articles published between 1950 and April 2023. Only RCT involving infants with infantile colic under 3 months were included. The treatment plan comprised 15 probiotics, which included Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 and Bifidobacterium animalis lactis BB-12. The probiotics were administered alone or in combination with a prebiotic, vs. no intervention or a placebo.
RESULTS
Probiotics resulted in an average reduction of 51 min of crying per day (p = 0.001). Further analysis of subgroups showed that the reduction was -39.30 min for vaginal delivery (p = 0.003), -64.66 min for Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 (p = 0.03), -40.45 min for other strains (p < 0.00001), -74.28 min for exclusively breastfed infants (p = 0.0003) and -48.04 min for mixed feeding (p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSION
All probiotic strains seem effective in treating infantile colic. Exclusively breastfed infants have demonstrated more significant reduction in crying time. However, the available evidence on the effectiveness of probiotics in formula-fed and caesarean-born infants is limited.
Topics: Infant; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Colic; Breast Feeding; Probiotics; Emotions; Prebiotics; Limosilactobacillus reuteri
PubMed: 37962097
DOI: 10.1111/apa.17036 -
Systematic Reviews Dec 2022Symptomatic cholelithiasis is a common surgical disease and accounts for half of the over one million cholecystectomies performed in the USA annually. Despite its...
BACKGROUND
Symptomatic cholelithiasis is a common surgical disease and accounts for half of the over one million cholecystectomies performed in the USA annually. Despite its prevalence, only one prior systematic review has examined the evidence around treatment strategies and it contained a narrow scope. The goal of this systematic review was to analyze the clinical effectiveness of treatment options for symptomatic cholelithiasis, including surgery, non-surgical therapies, and ED pain management strategies.
METHODS
Literature search was performed from January 2000 through June 2020, and a narrative analysis was performed as studies were heterogeneous.
RESULTS
We identified 12 publications reporting on 10 trials (9 randomized controlled trials and 1 observational study) comparing treatment methods. The studies assessed surgery, observation, lithotripsy, ursodeoxycholic acid, electro-acupuncture, and pain-management strategies in the emergency department. Only one compared surgery to observation.
CONCLUSION
This work presents the existing data and underscores the current gap in knowledge regarding treatment for patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis. We use these results to suggest how future trials may guide comparisons between the timing of surgery and watchful waiting to create a set of standardized guidelines. Providing appropriate and timely treatment for symptomatic cholelithiasis is important to streamline care for a costly and prevalent disease.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO Protocol Number: CRD42020153153.
Topics: Humans; Cholelithiasis; Treatment Outcome; Emergency Service, Hospital; Prevalence; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36510302
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-022-02135-8 -
BMJ Open Feb 2020To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines to assess the effectiveness of four treatment approaches (manual therapy, probiotics, proton... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of systematic reviews and national guidelines to assess the effectiveness of four treatment approaches (manual therapy, probiotics, proton pump inhibitors and simethicone) on colic symptoms including infant crying time, sleep distress and adverse events.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Mantis for studies published between 2009 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews and guidelines that used evidence and expert panel opinion. Three reviewers independently selected articles by title, abstract and full paper review. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Selected studies were assessed for quality using modified standardised checklists by two authors. Meta-analysed data for our outcomes of interest were extracted and narrative conclusions were assessed.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were selected. High-level evidence showed that probiotics were most effective for reducing crying time in breastfed infants (range -25 min to -65 min over 24 hours). Manual therapies had moderate to low-quality evidence showing reduced crying time (range -33 min to -76 min per 24 hours). Simethicone had moderate to low evidence showing no benefit or negative effect. One meta-analysis did not support the use of proton pump inhibitors for reducing crying time and fussing. Three national guidelines unanimously recommended the use of education, parental reassurance, advice and guidance and clinical evaluation of mother and baby. Consensus on other advice and treatments did not exist.
CONCLUSIONS
The strongest evidence for the treatment of colic was probiotics for breastfed infants, followed by weaker but favourable evidence for manual therapy indicated by crying time. Both forms of treatment carried a low risk of serious adverse events. The guidance reviewed did not reflect these findings.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019139074.
Topics: Antifoaming Agents; Colic; Humans; Infant; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Probiotics; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Review Literature as Topic; Simethicone; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32102827
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035405 -
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies Feb 2021A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders....
The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.
BACKGROUND
A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial.
OBJECTIVES
We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders.
GLOBAL SUMMIT
The Global Summit took place on September 14-15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus.
RESULTS
We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report.
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.
Topics: Asthma; Colic; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Manipulation, Spinal; Noncommunicable Diseases
PubMed: 33596925
DOI: 10.1186/s12998-021-00362-9 -
Nutrients Dec 2022Supplementation of infant and follow-up formula with probiotics or synbiotics has become a common practice. In 2011 and 2017, the evidence regarding the impact of these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Supplementation of infant and follow-up formula with probiotics or synbiotics has become a common practice. In 2011 and 2017, the evidence regarding the impact of these interventions was analysed systematically. Recently new evidence was published. To evaluate through a systematic review with network meta-analysis the evidence on the impact of infant formula supplemented with probiotics or synbiotics for healthy infants and 36-month-old toddlers. RCTs published between 1999-2019 for infant formulas supplemented with probiotics alone or synbiotics in healthy infants and toddlers were identified. Data analysis included clinical (gastrointestinal symptoms, risk reduction of infectious diseases, use of antibiotics, weight/height gain and frequency of adverse events) and non-clinical outcomes (changes in faecal microbiota and immune parameters). A random effect model was used. Hedges' standard mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) were calculated. Rank analysis was performed to evaluate the superiority of each intervention. Twenty-six randomised controlled trials with 35 direct comparisons involving 1957 children receiving probiotic-supplemented formula and 1898 receiving control formula were reviewed. The mean duration of intervention was 5.6 ± 2.84 months. Certain strains demonstrated a reduction in episodes of colic, number of days with fever and use of antibiotics; however, there was considerable heterogeneity which reduced the level of certainty of effect. No significant effects were observed on weight, height or changes in faecal proportions of or . Although there is some evidence that may support a potential benefit of probiotic or synbiotic supplementation of infant formulas, variation in the quality of existing trials and the heterogeneity of the data preclude the establishment of robust recommendations.
Topics: Infant; Humans; Child, Preschool; Infant Formula; Network Meta-Analysis; Probiotics; Synbiotics; Bifidobacterium; Weight Gain; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 36501205
DOI: 10.3390/nu14235175 -
Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) Jul 2023Osteopathy and chiropractic techniques are used for babies for different reasons, but it is unclear how effective they are. The aim of this study was to evaluate their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Osteopathy and chiropractic techniques are used for babies for different reasons, but it is unclear how effective they are. The aim of this study was to evaluate their effectiveness in reducing crying time and increasing sleeping time in babies with infantile colic.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on infantile colic studies that used complementary and alternative medicine techniques as interventions. The outcome measures were hours spent crying and/or sleeping. We used the PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Osteopathic Medicine Digital Database and Google Scholar databases from inception to 11 November 2022.
RESULTS
The methodological quality of the randomised control trials ranged from fair to high. We focused on five studies with 422 babies. Complementary treatments failed to decrease the crying time (mean difference -1.08, 95% CI: -2.17 to 0.01, I = 92%) and to increase sleeping time (mean difference 1.11, 95% CI: -0.20 to 2.41; I : 91%), compared with no intervention. The quality of the evidence was rated as very low for both outcome measures.
CONCLUSION
Osteopathy and chiropractic treatment failed to reduce the crying time and increase sleeping time in babies with infantile colic, compared with no additional intervention.
Topics: Infant; Humans; Colic; Complementary Therapies; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Time Factors; Crying
PubMed: 37119443
DOI: 10.1111/apa.16807 -
Acta Paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) Sep 2020The aim of this review was to evaluate the evidence for interventions for infantile colic. (Review)
Review
AIM
The aim of this review was to evaluate the evidence for interventions for infantile colic.
METHODS
This was a systematic review based on a literature search in December 2017 for articles published during 2007-2017 about preventive and treatment interventions for infantile colic in infants. The review included original randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses with at least 20 infants in each study group that were assessed according to GRADE criteria.
RESULTS
The review found moderately strong evidence that administration of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 shortened the crying duration, with positive evidence from three out of four national contexts. There were four RCTs of acupuncture, all with no or minimal effect on crying duration. All studies reviewed with a follow-up until or beyond three months of age show a quite steep decline over time in crying duration in both treatment and control groups.
CONCLUSION
Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 is a promising treatment for infantile colic with moderately strong evidence in this review, but studies in more populations are needed. Acupuncture is not an effective treatment for infantile colic. Systematic support strategies to parents with infantile colic are important knowledge gaps.
Topics: Colic; Crying; Humans; Infant; Limosilactobacillus reuteri; Probiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32150292
DOI: 10.1111/apa.15247 -
Journal of Global Health May 2023Probiotics are non-invasive therapies composed of live bacteria and yeast. Administration of prebiotics improved the health status of pregnant and lactating women, as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics are non-invasive therapies composed of live bacteria and yeast. Administration of prebiotics improved the health status of pregnant and lactating women, as well as newborns. This review aimed to appraise the evidence concerning the effectiveness of probiotics on the mental health of pregnant women, lactating mother and the microbiota of the newborn.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis ascertained quantitative studies published in Medline (PubMed), Clinical Key, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, and Google scholar. Two authors independently screened and extracted the data from the primary studies that analysed the efficacy of probiotics on the mental health of pregnant and lactating women and the microbiota of the newborn. We adopted Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The qualities of included trials were assessed by Cochrane collaboration's risk of bias tool (ROB-2).
RESULTS
Sixteen trials comprised 946 pregnant women, 524 were lactating mothers, and 1678 were infants. The sample size of primary studies ranged from 36 to 433. Probiotics were administered as interventions, using either a single strain of Bifidobacterium or Lactobacillus or a double-strain combination of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium. Probiotics supplementation reduced anxiety in pregnant (n = 676, standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.28,0.30, P = 0.04, I = 70) and lactating women (n = 514, SMD = -0.17; 95% CI = -1.62,1.27, P = 0.98, I = 0). Similarly, probiotics decreased depression in pregnant (n = 298, SMD = 0.05; 95% CI = -0.24,0.35, P = 0.20, I = 40) and lactating women (n = 518, SMD = -0.10; 95% CI = -1.29,-1.05, P = 0.11, I = 60%). Similarly, probiotics supplementation improved the gut microbiota and reduced the duration of crying, abdominal distension, abdominal colic and diarrhoea.
CONCLUSION
Non-invasive probiotic therapies are more useful to pregnant and lactating women and newborns.
REGISTRATION
The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022372126).
Topics: Infant; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Depression; Lactation; Probiotics; Anxiety; Gastrointestinal Microbiome
PubMed: 37218177
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.13.04038 -
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira... 2023The aim of this study was to systematically review the colic and sleep outcomes of nonpharmacological intervention in infants with infantile colic and perform a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to systematically review the colic and sleep outcomes of nonpharmacological intervention in infants with infantile colic and perform a meta-analysis of the available evidence.
METHODS
The literature review for this systematic review was conducted between December 2022 and January 2023 using five electronic databases, namely PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and ULAKBİM. Published articles were scanned using MeSH-based keywords. Only randomized controlled trials conducted in the past 5 years were included. The data were analyzed using the Review Manager computer program.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included three studies involving a total of 386 infantile colic infants. After nonpharmacological treatment, it was found that infants with infantile colic reduced crying time (standardized mean difference: 0.61; 95%CI 0.29-0.92; Z=3.79; p=0.00002), improved sleep duration (standardized mean difference: 0.22; 95%CI -0.04 to 0.48; Z=1.64; p=0.10), and decreased crying intensity (mean difference: -17.24; 95%CI -20.11 to 14.37; Z=11.77; p<0.000001).
CONCLUSION
According to the meta-analysis findings, it was determined that the risk of bias was low in the studies included and that nonpharmacological chiropractic, craniosacral, and acupuncture treatments applied to infantile colic infants in the three included studies reduced crying time and intensity and increased sleep duration.
Topics: Humans; Infant; Colic; Sleep; Sleep Duration; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 37222334
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.20230071