-
Planta Medica Apr 2022is a typical shrub from Brazil that has been used in traditional medicine. This is a systematic review on the effect of for controlling dental plaque, gingivitis, and...
is a typical shrub from Brazil that has been used in traditional medicine. This is a systematic review on the effect of for controlling dental plaque, gingivitis, and periodontitis. A database search through May 2021 in Medline/PubMed, SCOPUS, BVS, and Web of Science identified 711 reports of which 17 met our inclusion criteria. Five randomized controlled trials and three animal studies were included that compared -based products (toothpaste, mouthrinse, and gel) to cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, and placebo products. Among the human studies, a significant antiplaque effect after treatment with -based products was observed in three studies and an antigingivitis effect in two studies, similar to chlorhexidine-based products. One study found superior dental plaque reduction compared to cetylpyridinium chloride mouthrinse. Only one study testing a gel found no antiplaque effect. Among the animal studies, an mouthrinse significantly reduced calculus in two studies, inflammatory infiltrate in one study, and plaque bacteria and gingivitis in one study. An gel significantly reduced alveolar bone loss and inflammatory response in one study in which mice were submitted to ligature-induced periodontal disease. In general, -based products were effective in reducing dental plaque and calculus formation, as well as clinical signs of gingivitis. As most studies present methodological limitations, these results should be interpreted carefully. Further clinical trials with greater methodological accuracy and control of biases are necessary for the use of -based products in humans to be viable in clinical practice.
Topics: Animals; Calculi; Cetylpyridinium; Chlorhexidine; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Lippia; Mice; Mouthwashes
PubMed: 34598290
DOI: 10.1055/a-1554-6947 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2011Sclerotherapy has been used in clinical practice for centuries, but there is still no consensus about which, if any, sclerosing agent provides the best results. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sclerotherapy has been used in clinical practice for centuries, but there is still no consensus about which, if any, sclerosing agent provides the best results.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of sclerosing agents in the treatment of telangiectasias of the lower limbs.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched 26 May 2011) and CENTRAL (2011, Issue 2). We searched references within identified studies and from the Cited References in the Web of Science. We contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies. There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials on the treatment of telangiectasias comparing sclerotherapy with a normal saline placebo, no treatment or an alternative sclerotherapy regimen.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Both authors determined which studies to include, extracted the data and rated risk of bias. One author (LS) contacted study authors and pharmaceutical companies and analysed the results.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten studies involving 484 patients were included. There was no evidence suggesting superior efficacy of any one sclerosant over another, but there was evidence of superiority of sclerotherapy to placebo.The evidence did not suggest an increase in patient satisfaction with any one agent versus another, but there was evidence that patients were less satisfied with placebo.There was some evidence suggesting that polidocanol (POL) was more likely to cause adverse reactions at a concentration of 1% compared with lower concentrations or hypertonic saline, and that sodium tetradecyl sulfate (STS) was more likely to cause adverse reactions at a concentration of 1% compared with POL at 0.5%.There was some evidence suggesting that STS was more painful than POL, heparsal (20% saline mixed with heparin 100 units/mL) or placebo, and that POL was no more painful than placebo. Evidence from one study suggested that hypertonic saline (HS) was more painful than POL.The data were not suitable for meta-analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence did not suggest superior efficacy or patient satisfaction for any one sclerosing agent used in the treatment of telangiectasias of the lower limbs, but the agents studied showed superiority to a normal saline placebo. However, the amount of available evidence in this field is small and the overall methodological quality of the research was poor, as was the quality of reporting. More research is needed to determine the optimal agent(s) and the ideal dosing to achieve the best results and maximize patient satisfaction. Future research efforts should incorporate more demographic data and symptom measures to allow for comparison with findings from observational studies, thereby aiding assessment of how various risk groups respond to treatment.
Topics: Heparin; Humans; Leg; Patient Satisfaction; Polidocanol; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sclerosing Solutions; Sclerotherapy; Sodium Chloride; Sodium Tetradecyl Sulfate; Telangiectasis
PubMed: 22161437
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008826.pub2 -
The British Journal of Ophthalmology Nov 2020This systematic review compared the efficacy and safety of benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-preserved eye-drops with alternatively preserved (AP) and preservative-free (PF)... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety evaluation of benzalkonium chloride preserved eye-drops compared with alternatively preserved and preservative-free eye-drops in the treatment of glaucoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND/AIMS
This systematic review compared the efficacy and safety of benzalkonium chloride (BAK)-preserved eye-drops with alternatively preserved (AP) and preservative-free (PF) eye-drops.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched for randomised controlled trials in June and October 2019. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were made by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Handbook. Studies on prostaglandin analogue or beta-blocker eye-drops and patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension were included. Primary outcome was change in intraocular pressure (IOP). Secondary outcomes were safety measures as assessed in original study.
RESULTS
Of 433 articles screened, 16 studies were included. IOP meta-analysis was conducted on 13 studies (4201 patients) ranging from 15 days to 6 months. No significant differences between BAK versus PF and AP were identified (95% CI -0.00 to 0.30 mm Hg, p=0.05). Meta-analyses revealed no differences between BAK versus AP and PF with regards to conjunctival hyperaemia (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.22, 3800 patients, 9 studies), ocular hyperaemia (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.78, 2268 patients, 5 studies), total ocular adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.20, 1906 patients, 5 studies) or tear break-up time (mean difference 0.89, 95% CI -0.03 to 1.81, 130 patients, 3 studies). Diverse reporting on safety measures made comparison challenging. Risk of bias was assessed as high or unclear in many relevant domains, suggesting potential selective reporting or under-reporting.
CONCLUSION
No clinically significant differences on efficacy or safety could be determined between BAK versus AP and PF. However, there were substantial uncertainties on safety.CRD42019139692.
Topics: Administration, Ophthalmic; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Benzalkonium Compounds; Databases, Factual; Glaucoma, Open-Angle; Humans; Intraocular Pressure; Ocular Hypertension; Ophthalmic Solutions; Preservatives, Pharmaceutical; Prostaglandins, Synthetic; Tonometry, Ocular; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32051133
DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2019-315623 -
Australasian Physical & Engineering... Dec 2011Many microorganisms responsible for hospital-acquired infections are able to stay viable on surfaces with no visible sign of contamination, in dry conditions and on... (Review)
Review
Many microorganisms responsible for hospital-acquired infections are able to stay viable on surfaces with no visible sign of contamination, in dry conditions and on non-porous surfaces. The infection risk to biomedical staff when servicing biomedical devices is not documented. An indirect approach has been used to examine the different aspects that will affect the risk of infection including a systematic review of microbial contamination and transmission relating to biomedical devices. A systematic review found 58% of biomedical devices have microbial contamination with 13% having at least one pathogenic organism. These microbes can persist for some months. Occupational-infections of biomedical service staff are low compared to other healthcare workers. A biomedical device with contaminated surface or dust was identified as the source of patient outbreaks in 13 papers. The cleaning agent most tested for removal of micro-organisms from devices was alcohol swabs, but sterile water swabs were also effective. However, manufacturers mainly recommend (74%) cleaning devices with water and detergent. Biomedical engineers and technicians have a small risk of being exposed to dangerous micro-organisms on most biomedical devices, but without skin breakage, this exposure is unlikely to cause ill-health. It is recommended that biomedical staff follow good infection control practices, wipe devices with detergent, sterile water or alcohol swabs as recommended by the manufacturer before working on them, and keep alcohol hand rubs accessible at all benches.
Topics: Biomedical Engineering; Equipment and Supplies; Health Personnel; Humans; Infection Control; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Exposure; Risk Factors
PubMed: 22015848
DOI: 10.1007/s13246-011-0103-3 -
BMJ Open Aug 2021To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and to assess the relationship between the dose of hand hygiene and the number of ARI, influenza-like illness (ILI) or influenza events.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registries were searched in April 2020.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that compared a community-based hand hygiene intervention (soap and water, or sanitiser) with a control, or trials that compared sanitiser with soap and water, and measured outcomes of ARI, ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza or related consequences.
DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for inclusion and extracted data.
RESULTS
Eighteen trials were included. When meta-analysed, three trials of soap and water versus control found a non-significant increase in ARI events (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.93); six trials of sanitiser versus control found a significant reduction in ARI events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89). When hand hygiene dose was plotted against ARI relative risk, no clear dose-response relationship was observable. Four trials were head-to-head comparisons of sanitiser and soap and water but too heterogeneous to pool: two found a significantly greater reduction in the sanitiser group compared with the soap group and two found no significant difference between the intervention arms.
CONCLUSIONS
Adequately performed hand hygiene, with either soap or sanitiser, reduces the risk of ARI virus transmission; however, direct and indirect evidence suggest sanitiser might be more effective in practice.
Topics: Hand Hygiene; Humans; Influenza, Human; Respiratory Tract Infections; Soaps; Virus Diseases
PubMed: 34408031
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046175 -
Clinical and Experimental Allergy :... Mar 2021Eczema and food allergy start in infancy and have shared genetic risk factors that affect skin barrier. We aimed to evaluate whether skincare interventions can prevent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Eczema and food allergy start in infancy and have shared genetic risk factors that affect skin barrier. We aimed to evaluate whether skincare interventions can prevent eczema or food allergy.
DESIGN
A prospectively planned individual participant data meta-analysis was carried out within a Cochrane systematic review to determine whether skincare interventions in term infants prevent eczema or food allergy.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and trial registries to July 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTED STUDIES
Included studies were randomized controlled trials of infants <1 year with healthy skin comparing a skin intervention with a control, for prevention of eczema and food allergy outcomes between 1 and 3 years.
RESULTS
Of the 33 identified trials, 17 trials (5823 participants) had relevant outcome data and 10 (5154 participants) contributed to IPD meta-analysis. Three of seven trials contributing to primary eczema analysis were at low risk of bias, and the single trial contributing to primary food allergy analysis was at high risk of bias. Interventions were mainly emollients, applied for the first 3-12 months. Skincare interventions probably do not change risk of eczema by age 1-3 years (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81, 1.31; I =41%; moderate certainty; 3075 participants, 7 trials). Sensitivity analysis found heterogeneity was explained by increased eczema in a trial of daily bathing as part of the intervention. It is unclear whether skincare interventions increase risk of food allergy by age 1-3 years (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; very low certainty; 996 participants, 1 trial), but they probably increase risk of local skin infections (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02, 1.77; I =0%; moderate certainty; 2728 participants, 6 trials).
CONCLUSION
Regular emollients during infancy probably do not prevent eczema and probably increase local skin infections.
Topics: Dermatitis, Atopic; Emollients; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Skin Care; Skin Diseases, Infectious; Soaps; Water Softening
PubMed: 33550675
DOI: 10.1111/cea.13847 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015Achilles tendinopathy is a common condition, often with significant functional consequences. As a wide range of injection treatments are available, a review of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Achilles tendinopathy is a common condition, often with significant functional consequences. As a wide range of injection treatments are available, a review of randomised trials evaluating injection therapies to help inform treatment decisions is warranted.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of injection therapies for people with Achilles tendinopathy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 20 April 2015: the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus. We also searched trial registers (29 May 2014) and reference lists of articles to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating injection therapies in adults with an investigator-reported diagnosis of Achilles tendinopathy. We accepted comparison arms of placebo (sham) or no injection control, or other active treatment (such as physiotherapy, pharmaceuticals or surgery). Our primary outcomes were function, using measures such as the VISA-A (Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment-Achilles questionnaire), and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We assessed treatment effects using mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables and risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs for dichotomous variables. For follow-up data, we defined short-term as up to six weeks, medium-term as up to three months and longer-term as data beyond three months. We performed meta-analysis where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 studies (732 participants). Seven trials exclusively studied athletic populations. The mean ages of the participants in the individual trials ranged from 20 years to 50 years. Fifteen trials compared an injection therapy with a placebo injection or no injection control, four trials compared an injection therapy with active treatment, and one compared two different concentrations of the same injection. Thus no trials compared different injection therapies. Two studies had three trial arms and we included them twice in two different categories. Within these categories, we further subdivided injection therapies by mode of action (injury-causing versus direct repair agents).The risk of bias was unclear (due to poor reporting) or high in six trials published between 1987 and 1994. Improved methodology and reporting for the subsequent trials published between 2004 and 2013 meant that these were at less risk of bias.Given the very low quality evidence available from each of four small trials comparing different combinations of injection therapy versus active treatment and the single trial comparing two doses of one injection therapy, only the results of the first comparison (injection therapy versus control) are presented.There is low quality evidence of a lack of significant or clinically important differences in VISA-A scores (0 to 100: best function) between injection therapy and control groups at six weeks (MD 0.79, 95% CI -4.56 to 6.14; 200 participants, five trials), three months (MD -0.94, 95% CI -6.34 to 4.46; 189 participants, five trials) or between six and 12 months (MD 0.14, 95% CI -6.54 to 6.82; 132 participants, three trials). Very low quality evidence from 13 trials showed little difference between the two groups in adverse events (14/243 versus 12/206; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.89), most of which were minor and short-lasting. The only major adverse event in the injection therapy group was an Achilles tendon rupture, which happened in a trial testing corticosteroid injections. There was very low quality evidence in favour of the injection therapy group in short-term (under three months) pain (219 participants, seven trials) and in the return to sports (335 participants, seven trials). There was very low quality evidence indicating little difference between groups in patient satisfaction with treatment (152 participants, four trials). There was insufficient evidence to conclude on subgroup differences based on mode of action given that only two trials tested injury-causing agents and the clear heterogeneity of the other 13 trials, which tested seven different therapies that act directly on the repair pathway.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to draw conclusions on the use, or to support the routine use, of injection therapies for treating Achilles tendinopathy. This review has highlighted a need for definitive research in the area of injection therapies for Achilles tendinopathy, including in older non-athletic populations. This review has shown that there is a consensus in the literature that placebo-controlled trials are considered the most appropriate trial design.
Topics: Achilles Tendon; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Aprotinin; Athletes; Fibroblasts; Glycosaminoglycans; Hemodialysis Solutions; Humans; Injections, Intralesional; Middle Aged; Platelet Transfusion; Polidocanol; Polyethylene Glycols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium Chloride; Tendinopathy; Young Adult
PubMed: 26009861
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010960.pub2 -
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental... Oct 2021Water-only or soap and water solutions are considered a gold standard for skin decontamination. However, there is lack of conclusive data regarding their efficacy. The... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
Water-only or soap and water solutions are considered a gold standard for skin decontamination. However, there is lack of conclusive data regarding their efficacy. The aim of this study was to summarize animal model data on skin decontamination using water-only, and/or soap and water. Covidence, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched to identify relevant articles using water-only or soap and water decontamination methods in animals. Data extraction was completed from studies, representing three animal models, and 11 contaminants. Results demonstrated water-only decontamination solutions led to complete decontamination in 3.1% (n = 16/524) protocols, incomplete decontamination in 90.6% (n = 475/524) of protocols, and mortality in 6.3% (n = 33/524) of protocols. Soap and water decontamination solutions resulted in complete decontamination in 6.9% (n = 8/116) protocols, incomplete decontamination in 92.2% (n = 107/116) of protocols, and mortality in 6.9% (n = 8/116) of protocols. Although water only, or soap and water is considered a gold standard for skin decontamination, most papers investigated found that water only, and soap and water provided incomplete decontamination. Due to the insufficient data, and limitations that hinder the applicability of available data, evidence indicates that more contemporary studies investigating skin decontamination are needed, and compared to other model species, including humans, when practical.
Topics: Animals; Decontamination; Humans; Models, Animal; Skin; Soaps; Species Specificity; Water
PubMed: 34278982
DOI: 10.1080/10937404.2021.1943087 -
International Archives of Occupational... Jan 2022Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) is a major cause of occupational disease. The aim was to review the relation between exposure to occupational irritants and ICD and the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) is a major cause of occupational disease. The aim was to review the relation between exposure to occupational irritants and ICD and the prognosis of ICD.
METHODS
Through a systematic search, 1516 titles were identified, and 48 studies were included in the systematic review.
RESULTS
We found that the evidence for an association between ICD and occupational irritants was strong for wet work, moderate for detergents and non-alcoholic disinfectants, and strong for a combination. The highest quality studies provided limited evidence for an association with use of occlusive gloves without other exposures and moderate evidence with simultaneous exposure to other wet work irritants. The evidence for an association between minor ICD and exposure to metalworking fluids was moderate. Regarding mechanical exposures, the literature was scarce and the evidence limited. We found that the prognosis for complete healing of ICD is poor, but improves after decrease of exposure through change of occupation or work tasks. There was no substantial evidence for an influence of gender, age, or household exposures. Inclusion of atopic dermatitis in the analysis did not alter the risk of ICD. Studies were at risk of bias, mainly due to selection and misclassification of exposure and outcome. This may have attenuated the results.
CONCLUSION
This review reports strong evidence for an association between ICD and a combination of exposure to wet work and non-alcoholic disinfectants, moderate for metalworking fluids, limited for mechanical and glove exposure, and a strong evidence for a poor prognosis of ICD.
Topics: Dermatitis, Allergic Contact; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatitis, Irritant; Dermatitis, Occupational; Humans; Irritants; Occupational Exposure; Skin
PubMed: 34665298
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-021-01781-0 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics May 2014Bile acid malabsorption (BAM) is a common, yet under-recognised, cause of chronic diarrhoea, with limited guidance available on the appropriate management of patients... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bile acid malabsorption (BAM) is a common, yet under-recognised, cause of chronic diarrhoea, with limited guidance available on the appropriate management of patients with BAM.
AIM
To summarise the evidence supporting different treatments available for patients with bile acid malabsorption, noting their impact on clinical outcomes, tolerability and associated side effects.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted through PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus. Relevant articles studied patients who had been diagnosed with BAM and were clinically assessed before and after therapy.
RESULTS
A total of 30 relevant publications (1241 adult patients) were identified, which investigated the clinical response to drugs, including colestyramine, colestipol, colesevelam, aluminium hydroxide and obeticholic acid. The most commonly used diagnostic test of bile acid malabsorption was the SeHCAT test (24 studies). Colestyramine treatment was by far the most studied of these agents, and was successful in 70% of 801 patients (range: 63-100%).
CONCLUSIONS
Colestyramine and colestipol are generally effective treatments of gastrointestinal symptoms from BAM, but may be poorly tolerated and reduce the bioavailability of co-administered agents. Alternative therapies (including colesevelam and aluminium hydroxide) as well as dietary intervention may also have a role, and the promising results of the first proof-of-concept study of obeticholic acid suggest that its novel approach may have an exciting future in the treatment of this condition. Future trials should employ accurate diagnostic testing and be conducted over longer periods so that the long-term benefits and tolerability of these different approaches can be evaluated.
Topics: Adult; Anion Exchange Resins; Bile Acids and Salts; Chronic Disease; Diarrhea; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Humans; Steatorrhea; Taurocholic Acid
PubMed: 24602022
DOI: 10.1111/apt.12684