-
Obstetrics and Gynecology Dec 2014To comprehensively review and critically assess the literature on vaginal estrogen and its alternatives for women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause and to provide... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To comprehensively review and critically assess the literature on vaginal estrogen and its alternatives for women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause and to provide clinical practice guidelines.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to April 2013. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective comparative studies. Interventions and comparators included all commercially available vaginal estrogen products. Placebo, no treatment, systemic estrogen (all routes), and nonhormonal moisturizers and lubricants were included as comparators.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We double-screened 1,805 abstracts, identifying 44 eligible studies. Discrepancies were adjudicated by a third reviewer. Studies were individually and collectively assessed for methodologic quality and strength of evidence.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Studies were extracted for participant, intervention, comparator, and outcomes data, including patient-reported atrophy symptoms (eg, vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, dysuria, urgency, frequency, recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI), and urinary incontinence), objective signs of atrophy, urodynamic measures, endometrial effects, serum estradiol changes, and adverse events. Compared with placebo, vaginal estrogens improved dryness, dyspareunia, urinary urgency, frequency, and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). Urinary tract infection rates decreased. The various estrogen preparations had similar efficacy and safety; serum estradiol levels remained within postmenopausal norms for all except high-dose conjugated equine estrogen cream. Endometrial hyperplasia and adenocarcinoma were extremely rare among those receiving vaginal estrogen. Comparing vaginal estrogen with nonhormonal moisturizers, patients with two or more symptoms of vulvovaginal atrophy were substantially more improved using vaginal estrogens, but those with one or minor complaints had similar symptom resolution with either estrogen or nonhormonal moisturizer.
CONCLUSION
All commercially available vaginal estrogens effectively relieve common vulvovaginal atrophy-related complaints and have additional utility in patients with urinary urgency, frequency or nocturia, SUI and UUI, and recurrent UTIs. Nonhormonal moisturizers are a beneficial alternative for those with few or minor atrophy-related symptoms and in patients at risk for estrogen-related neoplasia.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, CRD42013006656.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Atrophic Vaginitis; Estrogens; Female; Humans; Menopause; Urologic Diseases
PubMed: 25415166
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000526 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Tonic-clonic convulsions and convulsive status epilepticus (currently defined as a tonic-clonic convulsion lasting at least 30 minutes) are medical emergencies and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tonic-clonic convulsions and convulsive status epilepticus (currently defined as a tonic-clonic convulsion lasting at least 30 minutes) are medical emergencies and require urgent and appropriate anticonvulsant treatment. International consensus is that an anticonvulsant drug should be administered for any tonic-clonic convulsion that has been continuing for at least five minutes. Benzodiazepines (diazepam, lorazepam, midazolam) are traditionally regarded as first-line drugs and phenobarbital, phenytoin and paraldehyde as second-line drugs. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and updated in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anticonvulsant drugs used to treat any acute tonic-clonic convulsion of any duration, including established convulsive (tonic-clonic) status epilepticus in children who present to a hospital or emergency medical department.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (23 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 23 May 2017), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 23 May 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (23 May 2017), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 23 May 2017).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing any anticonvulsant drugs used for the treatment of an acute tonic-clonic convulsion including convulsive status epilepticus in children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
The review includes 18 randomised trials involving 2199 participants, and a range of drug treatment options, doses and routes of administration (rectal, buccal, nasal, intramuscular and intravenous). The studies vary by design, setting and population, both in terms of their ages and also in their clinical situation. We have made many comparisons of drugs and of routes of administration of drugs in this review; our key findings are as follows:(1) This review provides only low- to very low-quality evidence comparing buccal midazolam with rectal diazepam for the treatment of acute tonic-clonic convulsions (risk ratio (RR) for seizure cessation 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13 to 1.38; 4 trials; 690 children). However, there is uncertainty about the effect and therefore insufficient evidence to support its use. There were no included studies which compare intranasal and buccal midazolam.(2) Buccal and intranasal anticonvulsants were shown to lead to similar rates of seizure cessation as intravenous anticonvulsants, e.g. intranasal lorazepam appears to be as effective as intravenous lorazepam (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 1 trial; 141 children; high-quality evidence) and intranasal midazolam was equivalent to intravenous diazepam (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06; 2 trials; 122 children; moderate-quality evidence).(3) Intramuscular midazolam also showed a similar rate of seizure cessation to intravenous diazepam (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.09; 2 trials; 105 children; low-quality evidence).(4) For intravenous routes of administration, lorazepam appears to be as effective as diazepam in stopping acute tonic clonic convulsions: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 3 trials; 414 children; low-quality evidence. Furthermore, we found no statistically significant or clinically important differences between intravenous midazolam and diazepam (RR for seizure cessation 1.08, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.21; 1 trial; 80 children; moderate-quality evidence) or intravenous midazolam and lorazepam (RR for seizure cessation 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; 1 trial; 80 children; moderate-quality evidence). In general, intravenously-administered anticonvulsants led to more rapid seizure cessation but this was usually compromised by the time taken to establish intravenous access.(5) There is limited evidence from a single trial to suggest that intranasal lorazepam may be more effective than intramuscular paraldehyde in stopping acute tonic-clonic convulsions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.52; 160 children; moderate-quality evidence).(6) Adverse side effects were observed and reported very infrequently in the included studies. Respiratory depression was the most common and most clinically relevant side effect and, where reported, the frequency of this adverse event was observed in 0% to up to 18% of children. None of the studies individually demonstrated any difference in the rates of respiratory depression between the different anticonvulsants or their different routes of administration; but when pooled, three studies (439 children) provided moderate-quality evidence that lorazepam was significantly associated with fewer occurrences of respiratory depression than diazepam (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93).Much of the evidence provided in this review is of mostly moderate to high quality. However, the quality of the evidence provided for some important outcomes is low to very low, particularly for comparisons of non-intravenous routes of drug administration. Low- to very low-quality evidence was provided where limited data and imprecise results were available for analysis, methodological inadequacies were present in some studies which may have introduced bias into the results, study settings were not applicable to wider clinical practice, and where inconsistency was present in some pooled analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have not identified any new high-quality evidence on the efficacy or safety of an anticonvulsant in stopping an acute tonic-clonic convulsion that would inform clinical practice. There appears to be a very low risk of adverse events, specifically respiratory depression. Intravenous lorazepam and diazepam appear to be associated with similar rates of seizure cessation and respiratory depression. Although intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam lead to more rapid seizure cessation, the time taken to obtain intravenous access may undermine this effect. In the absence of intravenous access, buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam are therefore acceptable first-line anticonvulsants for the treatment of an acute tonic-clonic convulsion that has lasted at least five minutes. There is no evidence provided by this review to support the use of intranasal midazolam or lorazepam as alternatives to buccal midazolam or rectal diazepam.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Administration, Rectal; Anticonvulsants; Child; Diazepam; Epilepsy, Tonic-Clonic; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Injections, Intravenous; Lorazepam; Midazolam; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Status Epilepticus
PubMed: 29320603
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001905.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Vitamin B deficiency is common, and the incidence increases with age. Most people with vitamin B deficiency are treated in primary care with intramuscular (IM) vitamin... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Vitamin B deficiency is common, and the incidence increases with age. Most people with vitamin B deficiency are treated in primary care with intramuscular (IM) vitamin B. Doctors may not be prescribing oral vitamin B formulations because they may be unaware of this option or have concerns regarding its effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of oral vitamin B versus intramuscular vitamin B for vitamin B deficiency.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS, as well as the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. The latest search date was 17 July 2017. We applied no language restrictions. We also contacted authors of relevant trials to enquire about other published or unpublished studies and ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of oral versus IM vitamin B for vitamin B deficiency.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were serum vitamin B levels, clinical signs and symptoms of vitamin B deficiency, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, acceptability to patients, haemoglobin and mean corpuscular volume, total homocysteine and serum methylmalonic acid levels, and socioeconomic effects. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for important outcomes. We did not perform meta-analyses due to the small number of included trials and substantial clinical heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
Three RCTs met our inclusion criteria. The trials randomised 153 participants (74 participants to oral vitamin B and 79 participants to IM vitamin B). Treatment duration and follow-up ranged between three and four months. The mean age of participants ranged from 38.6 to 72 years. The treatment frequency and daily dose of vitamin B in the oral and IM groups varied among trials. Only one trial had low or unclear risk of bias across all domains and outcome measures. Two trials reported data for serum vitamin B levels. The overall quality of evidence for this outcome was low due to serious imprecision (low number of trials and participants). In two trials employing 1000 μg/day oral vitamin B, there was no clinically relevant difference in vitamin B levels when compared with IM vitamin B. One trial used 2000 μg/day vitamin B and demonstrated a mean difference of 680 pg/mL (95% confidence interval 392.7 to 967.3) in favour of oral vitamin B. Two trials reported data on adverse events (very low-quality evidence due to risk of performance bias, detection bias, and serious imprecision). One trial stated that no treatment-related adverse events were seen in both the oral and IM vitamin B groups. One trial reported that 2 of 30 participants (6.7%) in the oral vitamin B group left the trial early due to adverse events. Orally taken vitamin B showed lower treatment-associated costs than IM vitamin B in one trial (low-quality evidence due to serious imprecision). No trial reported on clinical signs and symptoms of vitamin B deficiency, health-related quality of life, or acceptability of the treatment scheme.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low quality evidence shows oral and IM vitamin B having similar effects in terms of normalising serum vitamin B levels, but oral treatment costs less. We found very low-quality evidence that oral vitamin B appears as safe as IM vitamin B. Further trials should conduct better randomisation and blinding procedures, recruit more participants, and provide adequate reporting. Future trials should also measure important outcomes such as the clinical signs and symptoms of vitamin B deficiency, health related-quality of life, socioeconomic effects, and report adverse events adequately, preferably in a primary care setting.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Aged; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamin B 12; Vitamin B 12 Deficiency; Vitamin B Complex
PubMed: 29543316
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004655.pub3 -
Journal of Patient Safety Dec 2021Delivery of intravenous medications in hospitals is a complex process posing to systemic risks for errors. The aim of this study was to identify systemic causes of...
OBJECTIVES
Delivery of intravenous medications in hospitals is a complex process posing to systemic risks for errors. The aim of this study was to identify systemic causes of in-hospital intravenous medication errors.
METHODS
A systematic review adhering to PRISMA guidelines was conducted. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, CINAHL, and EMB reviews for articles published between January 2005 and June 2016. Peer-reviewed journal articles published in English were included. Two reviewers independently selected articles according to a predetermined PICO tool. The quality of studies was assessed using the GRADE system and the evidence analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS
Eleven studies from six countries were included in the analysis. We identified systemic causes related to prescribing (n = 6 studies), preparation (n = 6), administration (n = 6), dispensing and storage (n = 5), and treatment monitoring (n = 2). Administration, prescribing, and preparation were the process phases most prone to systemic errors. Insufficient actions to secure safe use of high-alert medications, lack of knowledge of the drug, calculation tasks, failure in double-checking procedures, and confusion between look-alike, sound-alike medications were the leading causes of intravenous medication errors. The number of the included studies was limited, all of them being observational studies and graded as low quality.
CONCLUSIONS
Current intravenous medication systems remain vulnerable, which can result in patient harm. Our findings suggest further focus on medication safety activities related to administration, prescribing, and preparation of intravenous medications. This study provides healthcare organizations with preliminary knowledge about systemic causes of intravenous medication errors, but more rigorous evidence is needed.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Hospitals; Humans; Medication Errors; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 32011427
DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000632 -
Journal of Crohn's & Colitis Jul 20215-Aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] are the mainstay of treatment for ulcerative colitis [UC]. The optimum preparation, dose, and route of administration for UC remain unclear.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
5-Aminosalicylates [5-ASAs] are the mainstay of treatment for ulcerative colitis [UC]. The optimum preparation, dose, and route of administration for UC remain unclear. We conducted a network meta-analysis to examine this issue.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from inception to December 2020. We included randomised controlled trials [RCTs] comparing oral, topical, or combined oral and topical 5-ASAs, with each other or placebo for induction of remission or prevention of relapse of UC. Results were reported as pooled relative risks [RRs] with 95% confidence intervals [CIs] to summarise effect of each comparison tested, with treatments ranked according to P-score.
RESULTS
We identified 40 RCTs for induction of remission and 23 for prevention of relapse. Topical mesalazine [P-score 0.99], or oral and topical mesalazine combined [P-score 0.87] ranked first and second for clinical and endoscopic remission combined. Combined therapy ranked first in trials where ≥50% of patients had left-sided/extensive disease, and topical mesalazine first in trials where ≥50% of patients had proctitis/proctosigmoiditis. High-dose [≥3.3 g/day] oral mesalazine ranked third in most analyses, with the most trials and most patients. For relapse of disease activity, combined therapy and high-dose oral mesalazine ranked first and second, with topical mesalazine third. 5-ASAs were safe and well tolerated, regardless of regimen.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results support previous evidence; however, higher doses of oral mesalazine had more evidence for induction of remission than combined therapy and were significantly more efficacious than lower doses. Future RCTs should better establish the role of combined therapy for induction of remission, as well as optimal doses of oral 5-ASAs to prevent relapse.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Administration, Topical; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Colitis, Ulcerative; Humans; Mesalamine; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 33433562
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab010 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (a drop in core temperature to below 36°C) occurs because of interference with normal temperature regulation by anaesthetic drugs,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia (a drop in core temperature to below 36°C) occurs because of interference with normal temperature regulation by anaesthetic drugs, exposure of skin for prolonged periods and receipt of large volumes of intravenous and irrigation fluids. If the temperature of these fluids is below core body temperature, they can cause significant heat loss. Warming intravenous and irrigation fluids to core body temperature or above might prevent some of this heat loss and subsequent hypothermia.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the effectiveness of preoperative or intraoperative warming, or both, of intravenous and irrigation fluids in preventing perioperative hypothermia and its complications during surgery in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid SP (1956 to 4 February 2014), EMBASE Ovid SP (1982 to 4 February 2014), the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1950 to 4 February 2014), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) EBSCOhost (1980 to 4 February 2014) and reference lists of identified articles. We also searched the Current Controlled Trials website and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing fluid warming methods versus standard care or versus other warming methods used to maintain normothermia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from eligible trials and settled disputes with a third review author. We contacted study authors to ask for additional details when needed. We collected data on adverse events only if they were reported in the trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We included in this review 24 studies with a total of 1250 participants. The trials included various numbers and types of participants. Investigators used a range of methods to warm fluids to temperatures between 37°C and 41°C. We found that evidence was of moderate quality because descriptions of trial design were often unclear, resulting in high or unclear risk of bias due to inappropriate or unclear randomization and blinding procedures. These factors may have influenced results in some way. Our protocol specified the risk of hypothermia as the primary outcome; as no trials reported this, we decided to include data related to mean core temperature. The only secondary outcome reported in the trials that provided useable data was shivering. Evidence was unclear regarding the effects of fluid warming on bleeding. No data were reported on our other specified outcomes of cardiovascular complications, infection, pressure ulcers, bleeding, mortality, length of stay, unplanned intensive care admission and adverse events.Researchers found that warmed intravenous fluids kept the core temperature of study participants about half a degree warmer than that of participants given room temperature intravenous fluids at 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes, and at the end of surgery. Warmed intravenous fluids also further reduced the risk of shivering compared with room temperature intravenous fluidsInvestigators reported no statistically significant differences in core body temperature or shivering between individuals given warmed and room temperature irrigation fluids.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Warm intravenous fluids appear to keep patients warmer during surgery than room temperature fluids. It is unclear whether the actual differences in temperature are clinically meaningful, or if other benefits or harms are associated with the use of warmed fluids. It is also unclear if using fluid warming in addition to other warming methods confers any benefit, as a ceiling effect is likely when multiple methods of warming are used.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Anesthesia; Body Temperature; Hot Temperature; Humans; Hypothermia; Infusions, Intravenous; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shivering; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 25866139
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009891.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Aug 2011Bronchiectasis is usually a complication of previous lower respiratory infection, and causes chronic cough and copious production of sputum, which is often purulent.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Bronchiectasis is usually a complication of previous lower respiratory infection, and causes chronic cough and copious production of sputum, which is often purulent. Bronchiectasis may cause signs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It can also be associated with cystic fibrosis and other congenital disorders, foreign body inhalation, and other causes of lung damage.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments in people with bronchiectasis but without cystic fibrosis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
RESULTS
We found 19 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: anticholinergic therapy, beta(2) agonists, bronchopulmonary hygiene physical therapy, corticosteroids (inhaled, oral), exercise or physical training, hyperosmolar agents (inhaled), leukotriene receptor antagonists, methyl-xanthines (oral), mucolytics (bromhexine or deoxyribonuclease), prolonged-use antibiotics, and surgery.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Bronchiectasis; Cystic Fibrosis; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Lung
PubMed: 21846412
DOI: No ID Found -
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ Jul 2023Paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opiates/opioids, administered parenterally via intravenous or intramuscular route, are widely used to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) to intravenously or intramuscularly administered non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or opioids for patients presenting with moderate to severe acute pain conditions to the ED: systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opiates/opioids, administered parenterally via intravenous or intramuscular route, are widely used to provide analgesia for patients with moderate to severe pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the level of analgesia provided by intravenous paracetamol (IVP) alone compared with NSAIDs (intravenous or intramuscular), or opioids (intravenous) alone in adults attending the ED with acute pain.
METHODS
Two authors independently searched PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Embase (OVID), Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and Google Scholar (3 March 2021-20 May 2022) for randomised trials without any language or date restriction. Clinical trials were evaluated using the Risk of Bias V.2 tool. The primary outcome was mean difference (MD) for pain reduction at 30 min (T30) post analgesia delivery. The secondary outcomes were MD in pain reduction at 60, 90 and 120 min; the need for rescue analgesia; and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Twenty-seven trials (5427 patients) were included in the systematic review and 25 trials (5006 patients) in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in pain reduction at T30 between the IVP group and opioids (MD -0.13, 95% CI -1.49 to 1.22) or IVP and NSAIDs (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.0 to 1.54. There was also no difference at 60 min, IVP group versus opioid group (MD -0.09, 95% CI -2.69 to 2.52) or IVP versus NSAIDs (MD 0.51, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.91). The quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluations methodology was low for MD in pain scores.The need for rescue analgesia at T30 was significantly higher in the IVP group compared with the NSAID group (risk ratio (RR): 1.50, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.83), with no difference found between the IVP group and the opioid group (RR: 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.70). AEs were 50% lower in the IVP group compared with the opioid group (RR: 0.50, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.62), whereas no difference was observed in the IVP group compared with the NSAID group (RR: 1.30, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.15).
CONCLUSION
In patients presenting to the ED with a diverse range of pain conditions, IVP provides similar levels of pain relief compared with opiates/opioids or NSAIDs at T30 post administration. Patients treated with NSAIDs had lower risk of rescue analgesia, and opioids cause more AEs, suggesting NSAIDs as the first-choice analgesia and IVP as a suitable alternative.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021240099.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Acetaminophen; Acute Pain; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Administration, Intravenous; Injections, Intramuscular; Emergency Service, Hospital; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37173122
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2022-212869 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2009Croup leads to signs of upper airway obstruction, and must be differentiated from acute epiglottitis, bacterial tracheitis, or an inhaled foreign body. Croup affects... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Croup leads to signs of upper airway obstruction, and must be differentiated from acute epiglottitis, bacterial tracheitis, or an inhaled foreign body. Croup affects about 3% of children a year, usually between the ages of 6 months and 3 years, and 75% of infections are caused by Parainfluenza virus. Symptoms usually resolve within 48 hours, but severe infection can, rarely, lead to pneumonia, and to respiratory failure and arrest.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in children with: mild croup; moderate to severe croup; and impending respiratory failure because of severe croup? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 43 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, corticosteroids, dexamethasone (intramuscular, oral, single-dose oral, route of administration), heliox, humidification, intermittent positive pressure breathing, L-adrenaline, nebulised adrenaline (epinephrine), nebulised budesonide, nebulised short-acting beta(2) agonists, oral decongestants, oral prednisolone, oxygen, and sedatives.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Budesonide; Croup; Dexamethasone; Epinephrine; Humans; Infant
PubMed: 19445760
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2008Bronchiectasis is usually a complication of previous lower respiratory infection, and causes chronic cough and copious production of sputum, which is often purulent.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Bronchiectasis is usually a complication of previous lower respiratory infection, and causes chronic cough and copious production of sputum, which is often purulent. Bronchiectasis may cause signs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It can also be associated with cystic fibrosis and other congenital disorders, foreign body inhalation, and other causes of lung damage.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments in people with bronchiectasis but without cystic fibrosis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to July 2007 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
RESULTS
We found 16 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: anticholinergic therapy, bronchopulmonary hygiene physical therapy, exercise or physical training, hyperosmolar agents (inhaled), leukotriene receptor antagonists, methyl-xanthines (oral), mucolytics (bromhexine or deoxyribonuclease), prolonged-use antibiotics, beta(2) agonists, steroids (inhaled, oral), and surgery.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Administration, Oral; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Bronchiectasis; Cough; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Lung; Sputum
PubMed: 19450337
DOI: No ID Found