-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2023Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence). One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients. Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.
Topics: Aged; Child, Preschool; Humans; COVID-19; Influenza, Human; Respiratory Tract Infections; SARS-CoV-2; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype; Communicable Disease Control; Global Health
PubMed: 36715243
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Nov 2021To review the evidence on the effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To review the evidence on the effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis, Joanna Briggs, Global Health, and World Health Organization COVID-19 database (preprints).
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION
Observational and interventional studies that assessed the effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The main outcome measure was incidence of covid-19. Secondary outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 transmission and covid-19 mortality.
DATA SYNTHESIS
DerSimonian Laird random effects meta-analysis was performed to investigate the effect of mask wearing, handwashing, and physical distancing measures on incidence of covid-19. Pooled effect estimates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were computed, and heterogeneity among studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I metrics, with two tailed P values.
RESULTS
72 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 35 evaluated individual public health measures and 37 assessed multiple public health measures as a "package of interventions." Eight of 35 studies were included in the meta-analysis, which indicated a reduction in incidence of covid-19 associated with handwashing (relative risk 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 1.12, I=12%), mask wearing (0.47, 0.29 to 0.75, I=84%), and physical distancing (0.75, 0.59 to 0.95, I=87%). Owing to heterogeneity of the studies, meta-analysis was not possible for the outcomes of quarantine and isolation, universal lockdowns, and closures of borders, schools, and workplaces. The effects of these interventions were synthesised descriptively.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that several personal protective and social measures, including handwashing, mask wearing, and physical distancing are associated with reductions in the incidence covid-19. Public health efforts to implement public health measures should consider community health and sociocultural needs, and future research is needed to better understand the effectiveness of public health measures in the context of covid-19 vaccination.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020178692.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Communicable Disease Control; Global Health; Hand Disinfection; Humans; Incidence; Masks; Physical Distancing; Public Health; Quarantine; SARS-CoV-2; Schools; Travel; World Health Organization
PubMed: 34789505
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-068302 -
Lancet (London, England) Jun 2020Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings.
METHODS
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047.
FINDINGS
Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; p=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12-16-layer cotton masks; p=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD -10·6%, 95% CI -12·5 to -7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings.
INTERPRETATION
The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance.
FUNDING
World Health Organization.
Topics: Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Communicable Disease Control; Coronavirus Infections; Eye Protective Devices; Humans; Masks; Pandemics; Physical Distancing; Pneumonia, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Social Isolation
PubMed: 32497510
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9 -
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Oct 2022The objective of this systematic review was to determine the orthodontic and dentofacial orthopedic treatments carried out in patients with ectodermal dysplasia to... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this systematic review was to determine the orthodontic and dentofacial orthopedic treatments carried out in patients with ectodermal dysplasia to facilitate functional and aesthetic rehabilitation.
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Scielo, LILACS, EBSCOhost and Embase databases up to 6 January 2022. We included articles describing patients with any type of ectodermal dysplasia who received orthodontic or dentofacial orthopedic treatment to facilitate functional and aesthetic oral rehabilitation. The search was not restricted by language or year of publication. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality Assessment Scale of the University of Adelaide for case series and case reports. The review was registered at the University of York Centre for reviews (CRD42021288030).
RESULTS
Of the initial 403 studies found, 29 met the inclusion criteria. After applying the quality scale, 23 were left for review-21 case reports and 2 case series. The initial age of patients ranged from 34 months to 24 years. Thirteen studies were on hypohidrotic and/or anhidrotic ectodermal dysplasia, of which two were X-chromosome linked. In one study, the patient had Wiktop syndrome, and in nine the type of ectodermal dysplasia was not specified. The duration of treatment was 7 weeks to 10 years. The treatments described were: fixed orthodontic appliances or simple acrylic plates designed for tooth movement, including leveling and aligning, closing of diastemata, retraction of impacted teeth in the dental arch; clear aligners; fixed and/or removable appliances for the correction of skeletal and/or dentoalveolar relationships; palatal expanders in combination with face masks for orthopedic traction of the maxilla; and orthognathic surgery. Only three studies provided cephalometric data.
CONCLUSION
The level of evidence of the articles reviewed was low and most orthopedic and dentofacial orthodontic treatments described were focused on correcting dental malpositioning and jaw asymmetries and not on stimulating growth from an early age. Studies with greater scientific evidence are needed to determine the best treatment for these patients.
Topics: Child, Preschool; Ectodermal Dysplasia; Ectodermal Dysplasia 1, Anhidrotic; Humans; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 36253866
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-022-02533-0 -
Sleep Medicine Reviews Feb 2021White noise is purported to mask disruptive noises in the bedroom environment and be a non-pharmacological approach for promoting sleep and improving sleep quality. We... (Review)
Review
White noise is purported to mask disruptive noises in the bedroom environment and be a non-pharmacological approach for promoting sleep and improving sleep quality. We conducted a systematic review of all studies examining the relationships between continuous white noise or similar broadband noise and sleep (PROSPERO 2020: CRD42020148736). Animal studies and studies using intermittent white noise to disrupt sleep or enhance slow wave activity were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts of articles from three databases and assessed risk of bias for the 38 included articles. The primary outcomes described sleep onset latency, sleep fragmentation, sleep quality, and sleep and wake duration. There was heterogeneity in noise characteristics, sleep measurement methodology, adherence to the intervention, control group conditions or interventions, and presence of simultaneous experimental interventions. There was perhaps resultantly variability in research findings, with the extremes being that continuous noise improves or disrupts sleep. Following the GRADE criteria, the quality of evidence for continuous noise improving sleep was very low, which contradicts its widespread use. Additional research with objective sleep measures and detailed descriptions of noise exposure is needed before promoting continuous noise as a sleep aid, especially since it may also negatively affect sleep and hearing.
Topics: Humans; Noise; Sleep; Sleep Wake Disorders
PubMed: 33007706
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2020.101385 -
Prehospital Emergency Care 2022To assess comparative benefits and harms across three airway management approaches (bag valve mask [BVM], supraglottic airway [SGA], and endotracheal intubation [ETI])...
To assess comparative benefits and harms across three airway management approaches (bag valve mask [BVM], supraglottic airway [SGA], and endotracheal intubation [ETI]) used by prehospital emergency medical services (EMS) to treat patients with trauma, cardiac arrest, or medical emergencies, and how they differ based on techniques and devices, EMS personnel and patient characteristics. We searched electronic citation databases (Ovid® MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus) from 1990 to September 2020. We followed Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Effective Health Care Program Methods guidance. Outcomes included mortality, neurological function, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and successful advanced airway insertion. Meta-analyses using profile-likelihood random effects models were conducted, with analyses stratified by study design, emergency type, and age. We included 99 studies involving 630,397 patients. We found few differences in primary outcomes across airway management approaches. For survival, there was no difference for BVM versus ETI or SGA in adult and pediatric patients with cardiac arrest or trauma. For neurological function, there was no difference for BVM versus ETI and SGA versus ETI in pediatric patients with cardiac arrest. There was no difference in BVM versus ETI in adults with cardiac arrest, but improved neurological function with BVM or ETI versus SGA. There was no difference in ROSC for patients with cardiac arrest for BVM versus ETI or SGA in adults and pediatrics, or SGA versus ETI in pediatrics. There was higher frequency of ROSC in adults with SGA versus ETI. For successful advanced airway insertion, there was higher first-pass success with SGA versus ETI for all patients except adult medical patients (no difference), and no difference in overall success using SGA versus ETI in adults. The currently available evidence does not indicate benefits of more invasive airway approaches based on survival, neurological function, ROSC, or successful airway insertion. Strength of evidence was low or moderate; most included studies were observational. This supports the need for high-quality randomized controlled trials to advance clinical practice and EMS education and policy, and improve patient-centered outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Airway Management; Emergency Medical Services; Intubation, Intratracheal; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
PubMed: 34115570
DOI: 10.1080/10903127.2021.1940400 -
Neonatal Network : NN Nov 2020The purpose of this article was to determine specific skin injury prevention interventions for neonates in the NICU.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this article was to determine specific skin injury prevention interventions for neonates in the NICU.
DESIGN
The design was a systematic review.
SAMPLE
PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched to identify quantitative studies identifying skin injury preventions for neonates in the NICU.
OUTCOMES
The outcomes included skin integrity or skin condition.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies were included in the review. Twelve studies included a randomized design. Barriers were the main interventions for the prevention of pressure injury, medical adhesive skin injury, diaper dermatitis, and general skin condition. The types of barriers included hydrocolloids, polyurethane-based dressings, film-forming skin protectant, or emollients. Nonbarrier interventions included rotation between a mask and nasal continuous positive airway pressure (NCPAP) interfaces, utilization of prescribed guidelines to decrease pressure injuries, and use of a lower concentration of chlorhexidine gluconate as a disinfectant.
Topics: Bandages; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Skin; Skin Diseases
PubMed: 33318228
DOI: 10.1891/0730-0832/11-T-623 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a syndrome characterised by episodes of apnoea (complete cessation of breathing) or hypopnoea (insufficient breathing) during sleep.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a syndrome characterised by episodes of apnoea (complete cessation of breathing) or hypopnoea (insufficient breathing) during sleep. Classical symptoms of the disease - such as snoring, unsatisfactory rest and daytime sleepiness - are experienced mainly by men; women report more unspecific symptoms such as low energy or fatigue, tiredness, initial insomnia and morning headaches. OSA is associated with an increased risk of occupational injuries, metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, mortality, and being involved in traffic accidents. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) - delivered by a machine which uses a hose and mask or nosepiece to deliver constant and steady air pressure- is considered the first treatment option for most people with OSA. However, adherence to treatment is often suboptimal. Myofunctional therapy could be an alternative for many patients. Myofunctional therapy consists of combinations of oropharyngeal exercises - i.e. mouth and throat exercises. These combinations typically include both isotonic and isometric exercises involving several muscles and areas of the mouth, pharynx and upper respiratory tract, to work on functions such as speaking, breathing, blowing, sucking, chewing and swallowing.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of myofunctional therapy (oropharyngeal exercises) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (date of last search 1 May 2020). We found other trials at web-based clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that recruited adults and children with a diagnosis of OSA.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed our confidence in the evidence by using GRADE recommendations. Primary outcomes were daytime sleepiness, morbidity and mortality.
MAIN RESULTS
We found nine studies eligible for inclusion in this review and nine ongoing studies. The nine included RCTs analysed a total of 347 participants, 69 of them women and 13 children. The adults' mean ages ranged from 46 to 51, daytime sleepiness scores from eight to 14, and severity of the condition from mild to severe OSA. The studies' duration ranged from two to four months. None of the studies assessed accidents, cardiovascular diseases or mortality outcomes. We sought data about adverse events, but none of the included studies reported these. In adults, compared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy: probably reduces daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), MD (mean difference) -4.52 points, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) -6.67 to -2.36; two studies, 82 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may increase sleep quality (MD -3.90 points, 95% CI -6.31 to -1.49; one study, 31 participants; low-certainty evidence); may result in a large reduction in Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI, MD -13.20 points, 95% CI -18.48 to -7.93; two studies, 82 participants; low-certainty evidence); may have little to no effect in reduction of snoring frequency but the evidence is very uncertain (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) -0.53 points, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.03; two studies, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and probably reduces subjective snoring intensity slightly (MD -1.9 points, 95% CI -3.69 to -0.11 one study, 51 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to waiting list, myofunctional therapy may: reduce daytime sleepiness (ESS, change from baseline MD -3.00 points, 95% CI -5.47 to -0.53; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence); result in little to no difference in sleep quality (MD -0.70 points, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.61; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence); and reduce AHI (MD -6.20 points, 95% CI -11.94 to -0.46; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to CPAP, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.30 points, 95% CI -1.65 to 2.25; one study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence); and may increase AHI (MD 9.60 points, 95% CI 2.46 to 16.74; one study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to CPAP plus myofunctional therapy, myofunctional therapy alone may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.20 points, 95% CI -2.56 to 2.96; one study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase AHI (MD 10.50 points, 95% CI 3.43 to 17.57; one study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to respiratory exercises plus nasal dilator strip, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.20 points, 95% CI -2.46 to 2.86; one study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably increases sleep quality slightly (-1.94 points, 95% CI -3.17 to -0.72; two studies, 97 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in AHI (MD -3.80 points, 95% CI -9.05 to 1.45; one study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to standard medical treatment, myofunctional therapy may reduce daytime sleepiness (MD -6.40 points, 95% CI -9.82 to -2.98; one study, 26 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase sleep quality (MD -3.10 points, 95% CI -5.12 to -1.08; one study, 26 participants; low-certainty evidence). In children, compared to nasal washing alone, myofunctional therapy and nasal washing may result in little to no difference in AHI (MD 3.00, 95% CI -0.26 to 6.26; one study, 13 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy probably reduces daytime sleepiness and may increase sleep quality in the short term. The certainty of the evidence for all comparisons ranges from moderate to very low, mainly due to lack of blinding of the assessors of subjective outcomes, incomplete outcome data and imprecision. More studies are needed. In future studies, outcome assessors should be blinded. New trials should recruit more participants, including more women and children, and have longer treatment and follow-up periods.
Topics: Apnea; Child; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Exercise; Female; Humans; Isotonic Contraction; Male; Middle Aged; Myofunctional Therapy; Oropharynx; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Snoring; Therapeutic Irrigation; Waiting Lists
PubMed: 33141943
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013449.pub2 -
The Science of the Total Environment Feb 2024Microplastics are plastic particles, films, and fibers with a diameter of < 5 mm. Given their long-standing existence in the environment and terrible increase in annual... (Review)
Review
Microplastics are plastic particles, films, and fibers with a diameter of < 5 mm. Given their long-standing existence in the environment and terrible increase in annual emissions, concerns were raised about the potential health risk of microplastics on human beings. In particular, the increased consumption of masks during the COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically increased human contact with microplastics. To date, the emergence of microplastics in the human body, such as feces, blood, placenta, lower airway, and lungs, has been reported. Related toxicological investigations of microplastics were gradually increased. To comprehensively illuminate the interplay of microplastic exposure and human health, we systematically reviewed the updated toxicological data of microplastics and summarized their mode of action, adverse effects, and toxic mechanisms. The emerging critical issues in the current toxicological investigations were proposed and discussed. Our work would facilitate a better understanding of MPs-induced health hazards for toxicological evaluation and provide helpful information for regulatory decisions.
Topics: Humans; Microplastics; Pandemics
PubMed: 38043812
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168946 -
European Journal of Medical Research Jan 2021Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), belonging to the Coronaviridae family, is agent of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). COVID-19... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), belonging to the Coronaviridae family, is agent of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). COVID-19 emerged in Wuhan, Hubei province of China, in early December 2019 and is now considered a pandemic. This study aimed to investigate the airborne transmission of COVID-19 and the role of face mask to prevent it.
METHODS
A systematic search for English-language literature was done via PUBMED/Medline and Google Scholar up to October 2020. There was two search strategy; for airborne transmission and the role of face mask for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Based on a fixed and random effects model, the RR and 95% CI were used to evaluate the combined risk. This meta-analysis followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) Guidelines.
RESULTS
After eligibility assessment, four articles with a total of 7688 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The result of this meta-analysis has shown significant reduction in infection with face mask use; the pooled RR (95%CI) was 0.12 [0.06, 0.27] (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that there is association between face mask use and reduction of COVID-19. However, COVID-19 spreads primarily with contact routes and respiratory droplets, but its transmissibility has many mysteries yet and there is controversy about airborne transmission of COVID-19.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Masks; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33388089
DOI: 10.1186/s40001-020-00475-6