-
Journal of Clinical Nursing Sep 2023Medication administration errors (MAEs) cause preventable patient harm and cost billions of dollars from already-strained healthcare budgets. An emerging factor... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Medication administration errors (MAEs) cause preventable patient harm and cost billions of dollars from already-strained healthcare budgets. An emerging factor contributing to these errors is nurse fatigue. Given medication administration is the most frequent clinical task nurses undertake; it is vital to understand how fatigue impacts MAEs.
OBJECTIVE
Examine the evidence on the effect of fatigue on MAEs and near misses by registered nurses working in hospital settings.
METHOD
Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework was used to guide this review and PAGER framework for data extraction and analysis. The PRISMA checklist was completed. Four electronic databases were searched: CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus and PsycINFO. Eligibility criteria included primary peer review papers published in English Language with no date/time limiters applied. The search was completed in August 2021 and focussed on articles that included: (a) registered nurses in hospital settings, (b) MAEs, (c) measures of sleep, hours of work, or fatigue.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight studies were included in the review. 82% of the studies identified fatigue to be a contributing factor in MAEs and near misses (NMs). Fatigue is associated with reduced cognitive performance and lack of attention and vigilance. It is associated with poor nursing performance and decreased patient safety. Components of shift work, such as disruption to the circadian rhythm and overtime work, were identified as contributing factors. However, there was marked heterogeneity in strategies for measuring fatigue within the included studies.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
Fatigue is a multidimensional concept that has the capacity to impact nurses' performance when engaged in medication administration. Nurses are susceptible to fatigue due to work characteristics such as nightwork, overtime and the requirement to perform cognitively demanding tasks. The mixed results found within this review indicate that larger scale studies are needed with particular emphasis on the impact of overtime work. Policy around safe working hours need to be re-evaluated and fatigue management systems put in place to ensure delivery of safe and quality patient care.
Topics: Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Patient Safety; Hospitals; Fatigue; Menthol; Nurses
PubMed: 36707921
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.16620 -
The Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic... Aug 2020Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), a scarring alopecia that commonly affects women of African descent, can be challenging to manage, and there are limited... (Review)
Review
Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), a scarring alopecia that commonly affects women of African descent, can be challenging to manage, and there are limited treatment modalities available. The use of natural ingredients for nonscarring hair loss has gained popularity among patients, but has not been previously studied for CCCA. We sought to review clinical studies evaluating the use of natural ingredients in the treatment of CCCA. Systematic searches of the PubMed and SCOPUS databases were performed in March 2018 using various ingredient names and the terms , and . Specific ingredients included azelaic acid, peppermint oil, pumpkin seed oil, garlic supplements/shampoo, Black castor oil, jojoba oil, argan oil, olive oil, horsetail plant oil, lavender oil, coconut oil, chamomile oil, thyme oil, tea tree oil, sulfur oil, menthol, and rosemary oil. Two reviewers independently screened titles, leading to the selection of eight clinical studies. A review of the literature revealed no clinical trials that evaluated the treatment of CCCA with natural ingredients. Despite limited evidence-based research for CCCA, several natural ingredients showed efficacy in alopecia areata, androgenetic alopecia, and psoriatic alopecia. Upon review of the literature, there were no randomized, controlled studies evaluating the use of natural ingredients or aromatherapy in the management of CCCA. Despite this, several botanical and natural ingredients do show promise in treating androgenetic alopecia and alopecia areata. More clinical studies need to be performed to evaluate treatment options as a whole, including natural modalities, to better serve these patients.
PubMed: 33178378
DOI: No ID Found -
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology Oct 2017Primary localized cutaneous amyloidosis (PLCA) is characterized by extracellular deposition of heterogenic amyloid proteins in the skin without systemic involvement.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Primary localized cutaneous amyloidosis (PLCA) is characterized by extracellular deposition of heterogenic amyloid proteins in the skin without systemic involvement. Lichen amyloidosis, macular amyloidosis, and (primary localized cutaneous) nodular amyloidosis are different subtypes of PLCA.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to review the current reported treatment options for PLCA.
METHODS
This systematic review was based on a search in the PubMed database for English and German articles from 1985 to 2016.
RESULTS
Reports on the treatment of PLCA were limited predominantly to case reports or small case series. There were a few clinical trials but these lacked control groups. A variety of treatment options for PLCA were reported including retinoids, corticosteroids, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, amitriptyline, colchicine, cepharanthin, tacrolimus, dimethyl sulfoxide, vitamin D analogs, capsaicin, menthol, hydrocolloid dressings, surgical modalities, laser treatment, and phototherapy.
CONCLUSION
No definitive recommendation of preferable treatment procedures can be made based on the analyzed literature. Randomized controlled trials are needed to offer patients an evidence-based therapy with high-quality standardized treatment regimens for PLCA.
Topics: Amyloidosis, Familial; Bandages, Hydrocolloid; Dermatologic Agents; Dermatologic Surgical Procedures; Europe; Humans; Laser Therapy; Phototherapy; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Skin; Skin Diseases, Genetic
PubMed: 28342017
DOI: 10.1007/s40257-017-0278-9 -
BMC Public Health Dec 2017Although menthol was not banned under the Tobacco Control Act, the law made it clear that this did not prevent the Food and Drug Administration from issuing a product... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although menthol was not banned under the Tobacco Control Act, the law made it clear that this did not prevent the Food and Drug Administration from issuing a product standard to ban menthol to protect public health. The purpose of this review was to update the evidence synthesis regarding the role of menthol in initiation, dependence and cessation.
METHODS
A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature on menthol cigarettes via a PubMed search through May 9, 2017. The National Cancer Institute's Bibliography of Literature on Menthol and Tobacco and the FDA's 2011 report and 2013 addendum were reviewed for additional publications. Included articles addressing initiation, dependence, and cessation were synthesized based on study design and quality, consistency of evidence across populations and over time, coherence of findings across studies, and plausibility of the findings.
RESULTS
Eighty-two studies on menthol cigarette initiation (n = 46), dependence (n = 14), and cessation (n = 34) were included. Large, representative studies show an association between menthol and youth smoking that is consistent in magnitude and direction. One longitudinal and eight cross-sectional studies demonstrate that menthol smokers report increased nicotine dependence compared to non-menthol smokers. Ten studies support the temporal relationship between menthol and reduced smoking cessation, as they measure cessation success at follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
The strength and consistency of the associations in these studies support that the removal of menthol from cigarettes is likely to reduce youth smoking initiation, improve smoking cessation outcomes in adult smokers, and in turn, benefit public health.
Topics: Cigarette Smoking; Health Policy; Humans; Menthol; Public Health; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; United States
PubMed: 29284458
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4987-z -
Phytotherapy Research : PTR Oct 2020Herbal treatments are often used as a treatment for migraine. Therefore, an evaluation of their safety and efficacy is important. Based on the Preferred Reporting Items...
Herbal treatments are often used as a treatment for migraine. Therefore, an evaluation of their safety and efficacy is important. Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias, a systematic literature review of randomised, controlled human trials assessing the effects of herbal treatments delivered as a single ingredient for the acute or prophylactic treatment of migraine were conducted. Studies were identified through electronic database searches on Medline (Pubmed), Cochrane Library, Scopus, and CINAHL. Nineteen studies were identified examining the effects on migraine of feverfew, butterbur, curcumin, menthol/peppermint oil, coriander, citron, Damask rose, chamomile, and lavender. Overall, findings on the efficacy of feverfew were mixed and there was positive, albeit limited evidence for butterbur. There were positive, preliminary findings on curcumin, citron, and coriander as a prophylactic treatment for migraine, and the use of menthol and chamomile as an acute treatment. However, the risk of bias was high for many studies. The results of this systematic review suggest that several herbal medicines, via their multifactorial physiological influences, present as potential options to enhance the treatment of migraine. However, further high-quality research is essential to examine their efficacy and safety as a treatment for migraine.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Chamomile; Chemoprevention; Citrus; Combined Modality Therapy; Coriandrum; Humans; Menthol; Migraine Disorders; Music Therapy; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; Plants, Medicinal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tanacetum parthenium
PubMed: 32310327
DOI: 10.1002/ptr.6701 -
Journal of Pharmacopuncture Sep 2018Averagely 80% to 90% of breastfeeding women experience the nipple pain and fissures. The important factor for successful breastfeeding is to treat this problem. This... (Review)
Review
Averagely 80% to 90% of breastfeeding women experience the nipple pain and fissures. The important factor for successful breastfeeding is to treat this problem. This study has done as a review with the aim of analysis of the clinical trials in the field of the prevention and treatment of the nipple fissures and pain due to the importance of breastfeeding. For this purpose, the key words of sore, nipples, fissure, trauma, wound, prevention, treatment, therapeutics, therapy, clinical trial, breastfeeding and their Persian synonyms and all of their possible combinations were searched in the national databases: SID and Iran Medex and Magiran, and in the international databases: PubMed, Scopus, Medline, Science direct by May 2017. The Jadad criterion was used to assess the quality of the articles and the articles with a score of 3 or more were included in this study. Finally, 48 clinical trials were reviewed that 17 of them (sample size 1801) scored 3 or more based on the Jadad criterion. Seven articles were also in the non- drug treatment group (sample size 491) and 2 articles in the drug treatment group (sample size 337) and 8 articles in the herbal treatment group (sample size 973).The results show that menthol and warm water compress as well as teaching the correct breastfeeding methods are effective treatments to prevent and treat the nipple pain and fissures. Moreover, applying the herbal medicine for prevention and treatment of the issues raised from breastfeeding may have beneficial such as . However, more studies with a great methodology are necessary to obtain more accurate evidence.
PubMed: 30283701
DOI: 10.3831/KPI.2018.21.017 -
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2017Although a few countries have banned flavored cigarettes (except menthol), flavors in most tobacco products remain unregulated across the globe. We conducted a... (Review)
Review
Although a few countries have banned flavored cigarettes (except menthol), flavors in most tobacco products remain unregulated across the globe. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies examining perceptions of and experiences with flavored non-menthol tobacco products. Of 20 studies on flavored tobacco products included in our qualitative systematic review, 10 examined hookah, six examined e-cigarettes, two examined little cigars and cigarillos (LCCs), and three examined other tobacco products, including cigarettes. The majority of studies, regardless of product type, reported positive perceptions of flavored tobacco products, particularly among young adults and adolescents. In six studies that assessed perceptions of harm (including hookah, LCCs, and other flavored tobacco products), participants believed flavored tobacco products to be less harmful than cigarettes. In studies that examined the role of flavors in experimentation and/or initiation (including three studies on e-cigarettes, one hookah study and one LCC study), participants mentioned flavors as specifically leading to their experimentation and/or initiation of flavored tobacco products. Given that many countries have not yet banned flavors in tobacco products, these findings add to existing research on why individuals use flavored tobacco products and how they perceive harm in flavored tobacco products, providing further support for banning non-menthol flavors in most tobacco products.
Topics: Flavoring Agents; Humans; Menthol; Qualitative Research; Smoking; Surveys and Questionnaires; Taste; Tobacco Products
PubMed: 28333107
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14040338 -
Clinical and Translational... Oct 2020In randomized controlled trials, L-menthol inhibits gastrointestinal peristalsis during endoscopy. Our goal was to quantitatively synthesize the available evidence to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
In randomized controlled trials, L-menthol inhibits gastrointestinal peristalsis during endoscopy. Our goal was to quantitatively synthesize the available evidence to evaluate the efficacy and safety of L-menthol for gastrointestinal endoscopy.
METHODS
We comprehensively searched for relevant studies published up to January 2020 in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. The main outcomes consisted of the proportion of no peristalsis, proportion of no or mild peristalsis, adenoma detection rate, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Eight randomized controlled trials analyzing 1,366 subjects were included. According to the pooled data, L-menthol significantly improved the proportion of no peristalsis (odds ratio [OR] = 6.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.94-8.57, P < 0.00001), and the proportion of no or mild peristalsis (OR = 7.89, 95% CI = 5.03-12.39, P < 0.00001) compared with the placebo, whereas it was not associated with an improvement in the adenoma detection rate (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.54-1.99, P = 0.92). Adverse events did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 0.75-2.59, P = 0.29).
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study support the use of L-menthol to suppress gastrointestinal peristalsis during endoscopic procedure.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Gastric Mucosa; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms; Humans; Menthol; Peristalsis; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spasm; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33031198
DOI: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000252 -
Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention,... Aug 2021The potential impact of menthol versus non-menthol cigarette use on smoking behaviors is an intensely scrutinized topic in the public health arena. To date, several... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Assessing the evidence on the differential impact of menthol versus non-menthol cigarette use on smoking cessation in the U.S. population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The potential impact of menthol versus non-menthol cigarette use on smoking behaviors is an intensely scrutinized topic in the public health arena. To date, several general literature reviews have been conducted, but findings and conclusions have been discordant. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines to examine the Key Question, "Does menthol cigarette use have a differential impact on smoking cessation compared with non-menthol cigarette use?"
METHODS
Six databases-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo-were queried from inception to June 12, 2020. Articles comparing menthol versus non-menthol cigarette smokers in terms of at least one predefined smoking cessation outcome were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-Based Practice Center approach. A random-effects model utilizing the DerSimonian and Laird method to pool adjusted odds ratio was applied. Variations among pooled studies were assessed using Cochran's Q statistic, and heterogeneity was quantified using the inconsistency index (I).
RESULTS
Forty-three demographically adjusted studies (22 rated "good", 20 rated "fair", and one study rated "poor" individual study quality) comparing menthol and non-menthol smokers were qualitatively synthesized across the following measures (study count; strength of evidence): duration of abstinence (2; low); quit attempts (15; insufficient); rate of abstinence/quitting (29; moderate); change in smoking quantity/frequency (5; insufficient); and, return to smoking/relapse (2; insufficient). Overall, the qualitative synthesis failed to show a consistent trend for an association between menthol cigarette use and smoking cessation across outcomes. Meta-analyses found no difference between menthol and non-menthol cigarette use and either quit attempts or abstinence.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the lack of consistency or statistical significance in the findings-combined with a "low" overall strength of evidence grade, based on deficiencies of indirectness and inconsistency-no consistent or significant associations between menthol cigarette use and smoking cessation were identified. Recommendations for future studies include increased focus on providing longitudinal, adjusted data collected from standardized outcome measures of cessation to better inform long-term smoking cessation and menthol cigarette use. Such improvements should also be further considered in more methodologically rigorous systematic reviews characterized by objectivity, comprehensiveness, and transparency with the ultimate objective of better informing public health and policy decision making.
Topics: Humans; Menthol; Smoking; Smoking Cessation; Tobacco Products; Tobacco Use Cessation Devices; United States
PubMed: 34380503
DOI: 10.1186/s13011-021-00397-4 -
American Journal of Health Behavior Sep 2022Menthol's effect on cigarette smoking behaviors is an intensely scrutinized US public health issue. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the question: Does... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Assessing the Evidence on the Differential Impact of Menthol versus Non-menthol Cigarette Use on Smoking Dependence in the US Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Menthol's effect on cigarette smoking behaviors is an intensely scrutinized US public health issue. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the question: Does menthol cigarette use have a differential impact on smoking dependence compared with non-menthol cigarette use? We consulted 6 databases from inception to October 15, 2021. We included articles comparing menthol versus non-menthol cigarette smokers against predefined smoking dependence outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the AHRQ Evidence-Based Practice Center approach. We applied a random-effects model to pool adjusted odds ratios. We synthesized 37 demographically adjusted studies. Meta-analytic results suggested non-menthol smokers were equally/more likely to report daily versus non-daily smoking; menthol use was associated with needing a cigarette within one hour; cigarettes per day was not associated with menthol use; menthol use was associated with a low (vs high) Heaviness of Smoking Index score; and results were either non-significant or associated menthol use with lower TTFC. Despite consistently good or fair quality adjusted studies across several measures, results were discordant depending on measures used and means of measurement. Overall, the evidence is insufficient to draw clear conclusions on a differential association between menthol (vs non-menthol) cigarette use and smoking dependence.
Topics: Cigarette Smoking; Humans; Menthol; Public Health; Tobacco Products; Tobacco Use Disorder
PubMed: 36109861
DOI: 10.5993/AJHB.46.4.3