-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.
OBJECTIVES
• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, General; Antiemetics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Placebos; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33075160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012859.pub2 -
Midwifery Nov 2021The anxiety mothers experience during pregnancy is well known and may have negative consequences for the emotional, psychological, and social development of newborns.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The anxiety mothers experience during pregnancy is well known and may have negative consequences for the emotional, psychological, and social development of newborns. Anxiety must therefore be reduced using different strategies.
OBJECTIVE
To determine published non-pharmacological interventions to reduce anxiety during pregnancy, childbirth and postpartum.
METHODS
A systematic peer-review of experimental and quasi-experimental studies was conducted using the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), and CINAHL databases. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Spanish version of the PEDro scale. Two researchers participated independently in the data selection and extraction process.
FINDINGS
587 articles were identified, of which 21 met the eligibility criteria. In eleven studies the intervention was performed during pregnancy, in three of them during labour, in four of them during the postpartum period, and in three of them during pregnancy and postpartum. During pregnancy, the most effective interventions were behavioural activation, cognitive behavioural therapy, yoga, music therapy, and relaxation; during childbirth: aromatherapy; during pregnancy and postpartum: antenatal training, massage by partners, and self-guided book reading with professional telephone assistance.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The most effective interventions to reduce anxiety were performed either during pregnancy or during the postpartum period, not during labour. Most of the interventions were performed on the women, with few of them being performed on both partners. Non-pharmacological interventions may be applied by nurses and midwives to reduce anxiety during pregnancy, labour and postpartum.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor, Obstetric; Parturition; Postpartum Period; Pregnancy
PubMed: 34464836
DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2021.103126 -
Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences May 2020Aromatherapy as an alternative and complementary medicine is a well-known method for reducing the symptoms of various physiological processes such as labor experience....
BACKGROUND
Aromatherapy as an alternative and complementary medicine is a well-known method for reducing the symptoms of various physiological processes such as labor experience. The aim of this study was to systematically review the currently available evidences evaluating the use of aromatherapy for management of labor pain and anxiety.
METHODS
In a systematic review, 5 databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Scientific Information Database [SID]) were searched, from database inception up to December 2019. Keywords used included (aromatherapy OR ""essential oil" OR "aroma*") AND (pain OR anxiety) AND (labor OR delivery). Using the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' method; the risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 33 studies were verified to meet our inclusion criteria. Most of the included studies were conducted in Iran. Aromatherapy was applied using inhalation, massage, footbath, birthing pool, acupressure, and compress. The most popularly used essential oil in the studies was lavender (13 studies), either as a single essential oil or in a combination with other essential oils. Most of included studies confirmed the positive effect of aromatherapy in reducing labor pain and anxiety.
CONCLUSION
The evidences from this study suggest that aromatherapy, as a complementary and alternative modality, can help in relieving maternal anxiety and pain during labor.
Topics: Anxiety; Aromatherapy; Female; Humans; Labor Pain; Obstetric Labor Complications; Pain Management; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32874088
DOI: 10.4314/ejhs.v30i3.16 -
JAMA Network Open Feb 2023Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of acute lower respiratory infection in children younger than 5 years; effective prevention strategies are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of acute lower respiratory infection in children younger than 5 years; effective prevention strategies are urgently needed.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies for the prevention of RSV infection in infants and children.
DATA SOURCES
In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from database inception to March 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials that enrolled infants at high risk of RSV infection to receive a monoclonal antibody or placebo were included. Keywords and extensive vocabulary related to monoclonal antibodies, RSV, and randomized clinical trials were searched.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline was used. Teams of 2 reviewers independently performed literature screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Developments, and Evaluation approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A random-effects model network meta-analysis was conducted using a consistency model under the frequentist framework.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The main outcomes were all-cause mortality, RSV-related hospitalization, RSV-related infection, drug-related adverse events, intensive care unit admission, supplemental oxygen use, and mechanical ventilation use.
RESULTS
Fifteen randomized clinical trials involving 18 395 participants were eligible; 14 were synthesized, with 18 042 total participants (median age at study entry, 3.99 months [IQR, 3.25-6.58 months]; median proportion of males, 52.37% [IQR, 50.49%-53.85%]). Compared with placebo, with moderate- to high-certainty evidence, nirsevimab, palivizumab, and motavizumab were associated with significantly reduced RSV-related infections per 1000 participants (nirsevimab: -123 [95% CI, -138 to -100]; palivizumab: -108 [95% CI, -127 to -82]; motavizumab: -136 [95% CI, -146 to -125]) and RSV-related hospitalizations per 1000 participants (nirsevimab: -54 [95% CI, -64 to -38; palivizumab: -39 [95% CI, -48 to -28]; motavizumab: -48 [95% CI, -58 to -33]). With moderate-certainty evidence, both motavizumab and palivizumab were associated with significant reductions in intensive care unit admissions per 1000 participants (-8 [95% CI, -9 to -4] and -5 [95% CI, -7 to 0], respectively) and supplemental oxygen use per 1000 participants (-59 [95% CI, -63 to -54] and -55 [95% CI, -61 to -41], respectively), and nirsevimab was associated with significantly reduced supplemental oxygen use per 1000 participants (-59 [95% CI, -65 to -40]). No significant differences were found in all-cause mortality and drug-related adverse events. Suptavumab did not show any significant benefits for the outcomes of interest.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this study, motavizumab, nirsevimab, and palivizumab were associated with substantial benefits in the prevention of RSV infection, without a significant increase in adverse events compared with placebo. However, more research is needed to confirm the present conclusions, especially for safety and cost-effectiveness.
Topics: Male; Infant; Child; Humans; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Palivizumab; Respiratory Syncytial Viruses; Network Meta-Analysis; Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infections; Respiratory Tract Infections; Oxygen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36800182
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.0023 -
BMJ Open Jul 2022Water immersion during labour using a birth pool to achieve relaxation and pain relief during the first and possibly part of the second stage of labour is an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Water immersion during labour using a birth pool to achieve relaxation and pain relief during the first and possibly part of the second stage of labour is an increasingly popular care option in several countries. It is used particularly by healthy women who experience a straightforward pregnancy, labour spontaneously at term gestation and plan to give birth in a midwifery led care setting. More women are also choosing to give birth in water. There is debate about the safety of intrapartum water immersion, particularly waterbirth. We synthesised the evidence that compared the effect of water immersion during labour or waterbirth on intrapartum interventions and outcomes to standard care with no water immersion. A secondary objective was to synthesise data relating to clinical care practices and birth settings that women experience who immerse in water and women who do not.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
A search was conducted using CINAHL, Medline, Embase, BioMed Central and PsycINFO during March 2020 and was replicated in May 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Primary quantitative studies published in 2000 or later, examining maternal or neonatal interventions and outcomes using the birthing pool for labour and/or birth.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Full-text screening was undertaken independently against inclusion/exclusion criteria in two pairs. Risk of bias assessment included review of seven domains based on the Robbins-I Risk of Bias Tool. All outcomes were summarised using an OR and 95% CI. All calculations were conducted in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V.3, using the inverse variance method. Results of individual studies were converted to log OR and SE for synthesis. Fixed effects models were used when I was less than 50%, otherwise random effects models were used. The fail-safe N estimates were calculated to determine the number of studies necessary to change the estimates. Begg's test and Egger's regression risk assessed risk of bias across studies. Trim-and-fill analysis was used to estimate the magnitude of effect of the bias. Meta-regression was completed when at least 10 studies provided data for an outcome.
RESULTS
We included 36 studies in the review, (N=157 546 participants). Thirty-one studies were conducted in an obstetric unit setting (n=70 393), four studies were conducted in midwife led settings (n=61 385) and one study was a mixed setting (OU and homebirth) (n=25 768). Midwife led settings included planned home and freestanding midwifery unit (k=1), alongside midwifery units (k=1), planned homebirth (k=1), a freestanding midwifery unit and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1) and an alongside midwifery unit (k=1). For water immersion, 25 studies involved women who planned to have/had a waterbirth (n=151 742), seven involved water immersion for labour only (1901), three studies reported on water immersion during labour and waterbirth (n=3688) and one study was unclear about the timing of water immersion (n=215).Water immersion significantly reduced use of epidural (k=7, n=10 993; OR 0.17 95% CI 0.05 to 0.56), injected opioids (k=8, n=27 391; OR 0.22 95% CI 0.13 to 0.38), episiotomy (k=15, n=36 558; OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.27), maternal pain (k=8, n=1200; OR 0.24 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51) and postpartum haemorrhage (k=15, n=63 891; OR 0.69 95% CI 0.51 to 0.95). There was an increase in maternal satisfaction (k=6, n=4144; OR 1.95 95% CI 1.28 to 2.96) and odds of an intact perineum (k=17, n=59 070; OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.79) with water immersion. Waterbirth was associated with increased odds of cord avulsion (OR 1.94 95% CI 1.30 to 2.88), although the absolute risk remained low (4.3 per 1000 vs 1.3 per 1000). There were no differences in any other identified neonatal outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
This review endorses previous reviews showing clear benefits resulting from intrapartum water immersion for healthy women and their newborns. While most included studies were conducted in obstetric units, to enable the identification of best practice regarding water immersion, future birthing pool research should integrate factors that are known to influence intrapartum interventions and outcomes. These include maternal parity, the care model, care practices and birth setting.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019147001.
Topics: Female; Humans; Immersion; Infant, Newborn; Labor, Obstetric; Natural Childbirth; Pain; Parturition; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35790327
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056517 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Evidence from disease epidemics shows that healthcare workers are at risk of developing short- and long-term mental health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Interventions to support the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic: a mixed methods systematic review.
BACKGROUND
Evidence from disease epidemics shows that healthcare workers are at risk of developing short- and long-term mental health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned about the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the mental well-being of health and social care professionals. Symptoms of mental health problems commonly include depression, anxiety, stress, and additional cognitive and social problems; these can impact on function in the workplace. The mental health and resilience (ability to cope with the negative effects of stress) of frontline health and social care professionals ('frontline workers' in this review) could be supported during disease epidemics by workplace interventions, interventions to support basic daily needs, psychological support interventions, pharmacological interventions, or a combination of any or all of these.
OBJECTIVES
Objective 1: to assess the effects of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Objective 2: to identify barriers and facilitators that may impact on the implementation of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic.
SEARCH METHODS
On 28 May 2020 we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus databases and WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing. We also searched ongoing trials registers and Google Scholar. We ran all searches from the year 2002 onwards, with no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies in which participants were health and social care professionals working at the front line during infectious disease outbreaks, categorised as epidemics or pandemics by WHO, from 2002 onwards. For objective 1 we included quantitative evidence from randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies, which investigated the effect of any intervention to support mental health or resilience, compared to no intervention, standard care, placebo or attention control intervention, or other active interventions. For objective 2 we included qualitative evidence from studies that described barriers and facilitators to the implementation of interventions. Outcomes critical to this review were general mental health and resilience. Additional outcomes included psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression or stress; burnout; other mental health disorders; workplace staffing; and adverse events arising from interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently applied selection criteria to abstracts and full papers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. One review author systematically extracted data, cross-checked by a second review author. For objective 1, we assessed risk of bias of studies of effectiveness using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. For objective 2, we assessed methodological limitations using either the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) qualitative study tool, for qualitative studies, or WEIRD (Ways of Evaluating Important and Relevant Data) tool, for descriptive studies. We planned meta-analyses of pairwise comparisons for outcomes if direct evidence were available. Two review authors extracted evidence relating to barriers and facilitators to implementation, organised these around the domains of the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research, and used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in each finding. We planned to produce an overarching synthesis, bringing quantitative and qualitative findings together.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 studies that reported implementation of an intervention aimed at supporting the resilience or mental health of frontline workers during disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): 2; Ebola: 9; Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): 1; COVID-19: 4). Interventions studied included workplace interventions, such as training, structure and communication (6 studies); psychological support interventions, such as counselling and psychology services (8 studies); and multifaceted interventions (2 studies). Objective 1: a mixed-methods study that incorporated a cluster-randomised trial, investigating the effect of a work-based intervention, provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of training frontline healthcare workers to deliver psychological first aid on a measure of burnout. Objective 2: we included all 16 studies in our qualitative evidence synthesis; we classified seven as qualitative and nine as descriptive studies. We identified 17 key findings from multiple barriers and facilitators reported in studies. We did not have high confidence in any of the findings; we had moderate confidence in six findings and low to very low confidence in 11 findings. We are moderately confident that the following two factors were barriers to intervention implementation: frontline workers, or the organisations in which they worked, not being fully aware of what they needed to support their mental well-being; and a lack of equipment, staff time or skills needed for an intervention. We are moderately confident that the following three factors were facilitators of intervention implementation: interventions that could be adapted for local needs; having effective communication, both formally and socially; and having positive, safe and supportive learning environments for frontline workers. We are moderately confident that the knowledge or beliefs, or both, that people have about an intervention can act as either barriers or facilitators to implementation of the intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a lack of both quantitative and qualitative evidence from studies carried out during or after disease epidemics and pandemics that can inform the selection of interventions that are beneficial to the resilience and mental health of frontline workers. Alternative sources of evidence (e.g. from other healthcare crises, and general evidence about interventions that support mental well-being) could therefore be used to inform decision making. When selecting interventions aimed at supporting frontline workers' mental health, organisational, social, personal, and psychological factors may all be important. Research to determine the effectiveness of interventions is a high priority. The COVID-19 pandemic provides unique opportunities for robust evaluation of interventions. Future studies must be developed with appropriately rigorous planning, including development, peer review and transparent reporting of research protocols, following guidance and standards for best practice, and with appropriate length of follow-up. Factors that may act as barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions should be considered during the planning of future research and when selecting interventions to deliver within local settings.
Topics: Betacoronavirus; Bias; Burnout, Professional; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Disease Outbreaks; Epidemics; Health Personnel; Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola; Humans; Mental Health; Needs Assessment; Occupational Health; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Psychosocial Support Systems; Resilience, Psychological; SARS-CoV-2; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome; Social Workers; Workplace
PubMed: 33150970
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013779 -
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis :... Aug 2020Thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) are point-of-care viscoelastic devices that use whole blood samples to assess coagulation and... (Review)
Review
Thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) are point-of-care viscoelastic devices that use whole blood samples to assess coagulation and fibrinolysis. These devices have been studied extensively in cardiac surgery, but there is limited robust evidence supporting its use in obstetrics. The hesitancy toward its routine use in obstetrics may be due to the current lack of randomized controlled trials and large observational studies. The study aims to systematically review studies that investigated TEG/ROTEM use in pregnancy or peripartum, and to provide recommendations for future studies to fill current research gaps. We performed a systematic review of studies on viscoelastic testing in obstetrics. Included studies were original research, used TEG or ROTEM during pregnancy or peripartum, and published in English. Ninety-three studies, spanning 31 years from 1989 to 2020 and with a total of 32,817 participants, were included. Sixty-two (66.7%) of the studies used TEG and 31 (33.3%) used ROTEM. To date, there are a total of two randomized controlled trials on TEG/ROTEM use in obstetrics. ROTEM may be used to guide transfusion therapy for postpartum hemorrhage. TEG and ROTEM can detect the hypercoagulable changes associated with pregnancy. Variability between study protocols and results suggests the need for future large prospective high-quality studies with standardized protocols to investigate the utility of TEG/ROTEM in assessing risk for thrombosis and hemorrhage as well as in guiding prophylaxis and treatment in obstetric patients. This review identifies the gaps and provides concrete recommendations for future studies to fill those gaps.
Topics: Blood Coagulation Disorders; Blood Transfusion; Female; Humans; Obstetrics; Pregnancy; Prospective Studies; Thrombelastography
PubMed: 32356929
DOI: 10.1111/jth.14882 -
Journal of Global Health Mar 2023Prolonged labour intensifies labour pain, and failure to address labour pain may lead to abnormal labour and augments the usage of operative interventions. Prolonged... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Prolonged labour intensifies labour pain, and failure to address labour pain may lead to abnormal labour and augments the usage of operative interventions. Prolonged labour is common among women, resulting in maternal morbidity, increased caesarean section (CS) rates, and postpartum complications. It may bring forth negative birth experiences that may increase the preference for CS. There is a dearth of evidence concerning the effectiveness of breathing exercises on the duration of labor. As per our knowledge, this is the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of breathing exercises on the duration of labor. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to appraise the evidence concerning the effectiveness of breathing exercises on the duration of labour.
METHODS
Electronic databases MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and ClinicalKey were searched for randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies published in the English language between January 2005 to March 2022 that reported on the effectiveness of breathing exercises on the duration of labour. Duration of labour was the primary analysed outcome. The secondary outcomes assessed were anxiety, duration of pain, APGAR scores, episiotomy, and mode of delivery. Meta-analysis was done using RevMan v5.3.
RESULTS
The reviewed trials involved 1418 participants, and the study participants ranged from 70 to 320. The mean gestational weeks of the participants among the reported trials was 38.9 weeks. Breathing exercise shortened the duration of the intervention group's second stage of labour compared with the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
Breathing exercise is a beneficial preventive intervention in shortening the duration of second stage of labour.
REGISTRATION
The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021247126).
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Cesarean Section; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Breathing Exercises
PubMed: 36896808
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.13.04023 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2022Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing evidence for the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Indications for the use of negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) are broad and include prophylaxis for surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT on postoperative wounds healing by primary closure remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of NPWT for preventing SSI in wounds healing through primary closure, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of NPWT in wounds healing through primary closure.
SEARCH METHODS
In January 2021, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries and references of included studies, systematic reviews and health technology reports. There were no restrictions on language, publication date or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials if they allocated participants to treatment randomly and compared NPWT with any other type of wound dressing, or compared one type of NPWT with another.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed trials using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and quality assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. Our primary outcomes were SSI, mortality, and wound dehiscence.
MAIN RESULTS
In this fourth update, we added 18 new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one new economic study, resulting in a total of 62 RCTs (13,340 included participants) and six economic studies. Studies evaluated NPWT in a wide range of surgeries, including orthopaedic, obstetric, vascular and general procedures. All studies compared NPWT with standard dressings. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias for at least one key domain. Primary outcomes Eleven studies (6384 participants) which reported mortality were pooled. There is low-certainty evidence showing there may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT (0.84%) compared with standard dressings (1.17%) but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefits and harm; risk ratio (RR) 0.78 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.30; I = 0%). Fifty-four studies reported SSI; 44 studies (11,403 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT probably results in fewer SSIs (8.7% of participants) than treatment with standard dressings (11.75%) after surgery; RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.85; I = 29%). Thirty studies reported wound dehiscence; 23 studies (8724 participants) were pooled. There is moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little or no difference in dehiscence between people treated with NPWT (6.62%) and those treated with standard dressing (6.97%), although there is imprecision around the estimate that includes risk of benefit and harms; RR 0.97 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.16; I = 4%). Evidence was downgraded for imprecision, risk of bias, or a combination of these. Secondary outcomes There is low-certainty evidence for the outcomes of reoperation and seroma; in each case, confidence intervals included both benefit and harm. There may be a reduced risk of reoperation favouring the standard dressing arm, but this was imprecise: RR 1.13 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.41; I = 2%; 18 trials; 6272 participants). There may be a reduced risk of seroma for people treated with NPWT but this is imprecise: the RR was 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.05; I = 0%; 15 trials; 5436 participants). For skin blisters, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with NPWT may be more likely to develop skin blisters compared with those treated with standard dressing (RR 3.55; 95% CI 1.43 to 8.77; I = 74%; 11 trials; 5015 participants). The effect of NPWT on haematoma is uncertain (RR 0.79; 95 % CI 0.48 to 1.30; I = 0%; 17 trials; 5909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There is low-certainty evidence of little to no difference in reported pain between groups. Pain was measured in different ways and most studies could not be pooled; this GRADE assessment is based on all fourteen trials reporting pain; the pooled RR for the proportion of participants who experienced pain was 1.52 (95% CI 0.20, 11.31; I = 34%; two studies; 632 participants). Cost-effectiveness Six economic studies, based wholly or partially on trials in our review, assessed the cost-effectiveness of NPWT compared with standard care. They considered NPWT in five indications: caesarean sections in obese women; surgery for lower limb fracture; knee/hip arthroplasty; coronary artery bypass grafts; and vascular surgery with inguinal incisions. They calculated quality-adjusted life-years or an equivalent, and produced estimates of the treatments' relative cost-effectiveness. The reporting quality was good but the evidence certainty varied from moderate to very low. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT in surgery for lower limb fracture was not cost-effective at any threshold of willingness-to-pay and that NPWT is probably cost-effective in obese women undergoing caesarean section. Other studies found low or very low-certainty evidence indicating that NPWT may be cost-effective for the indications assessed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
People with primary closure of their surgical wound and treated prophylactically with NPWT following surgery probably experience fewer SSIs than people treated with standard dressings but there is probably no difference in wound dehiscence (moderate-certainty evidence). There may be a reduced risk of death after surgery for people treated with NPWT compared with standard dressings but there is uncertainty around this as confidence intervals include risk of benefit and harm (low-certainty evidence). People treated with NPWT may experience more instances of skin blistering compared with standard dressing treatment (low-certainty evidence). There are no clear differences in other secondary outcomes where most evidence is low or very low-certainty. Assessments of cost-effectiveness of NPWT produced differing results in different indications. There is a large number of ongoing studies, the results of which may change the findings of this review. Decisions about use of NPWT should take into account surgical indication and setting and consider evidence for all outcomes.
Topics: Blister; Humans; Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seroma; Soft Tissue Injuries; Surgical Wound; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 35471497
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009261.pub7 -
International Journal of Qualitative... Dec 2020: Women's experiences of pregnancy, labour and birth are for some pregnant women negative and they develop a fear of childbirth, which can have consequences for their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
: Women's experiences of pregnancy, labour and birth are for some pregnant women negative and they develop a fear of childbirth, which can have consequences for their wellbeing and health. The aim was to synthesize qualitative literature to deepen the understanding of women's experiences of fear of childbirth.: A systematic literature search and a meta-synthesis that included 14 qualitative papers.: The main results demonstrate a deepened understanding of women's experiences of fear of childbirth interpreted through the metaphor "being at a point of no return". Being at this point meant that the women thought there was no turning back from their situation, further described in the three themes: To suffer consequences from traumatic births, To lack warranty and understanding, and To face the fear.: Women with fear of childbirth are need of support that can meet their existential issues about being at this point of no return, allowing them to express and integrate their feelings, experiences and expectations during pregnancy, childbirth and after birth.Women with fear after birth, i.e., after an earlier negative birth experience, need support that enables them to regain trust in maternity care professionals and their willingness to provide them with good care that offers the support that individual women require. Women pregnant for the first time require similar support to reassure them that other's experiences will not happen to them.
Topics: Attitude to Health; Delivery, Obstetric; Fear; Female; Humans; Parturition; Pregnancy; Pregnant Women; Qualitative Research; Trust
PubMed: 31858891
DOI: 10.1080/17482631.2019.1704484